Corporate Religion

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A few cases involving the mandates on employers have come down in the last week, which raise some interesting issues:

* In Tyndale House Publishers v. Sebelius, the Washington, DC district court granted an injunction on penalties stemming from the publishing house's refusal to offer contraceptive coverage, citing religious freedom. Of the key findings from the ruling, it was held that even the indirect burden is enough to cause a religious liberty issue, and that the government lacked a compelling interest in handing down the mandate.

* In Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, an Oklahoma district court ruled in favor of the federal government in part because the ruling differentiated between for-profit and religious corporations, making a distinction between organizations involved in worship and organizations that, at least according to this judge, are for-profit or simply religiously-associated.

We now have 4 lower court rulings in play right now regarding the contraception mandate. All four involved for-profit institutions, only Hobby Lobby ruling in favor of the government on the issue, and none of this has anything to do with the Liberty University case that just made it back to the 4th Circuit.

Why shouldn't corporate entities have religious freedom rights? Especially in the case of places like Hobby Lobby, who outright state that '[T]he foundation of our business has been, and will continue to be strong values, and honoring the Lord in a manner consistent with Biblical principles." Given the first amendment, hasn't the government clearly overstepped their bounds?

Comments

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

No, they offer insurance coverage because they are mandated to. They would not otherwise.

In fact, corporations are trying their hardest to deny coverage to people, like in the case of Walmart.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

actually no, corporations are not mandated to offer health insurance coverage. they provide them based on market demands.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

meanwhile, birth control is available at your local planned parenthood free of charge. go cry me a river.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

And unless you actually think that it shouldn't be free and over-the-counter, then we're not in any actual disagreement and I don't know why you keep replying to me.

I've been fairly explicit on my thoughts. So, why have you been replying to me if you felt that way? I've been replying to you because you kept implying I wasn't following logic when that isn't the case at all.

Considering that cheaper and more available has resulted in fewer teen pregnancies, I can very easily extrapolate that free (even cheaper) and over the counter (even more available) would only help the situation. I'm just following the trend.

You are now moving the goalpost. We went from "free" to "free and easy to get". I've been saying for quite sometime that the easy to get would likely drive increase use far more than the free. Did you just stop reading after I said something you disagreed with?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I've been saying for quite sometime that the easy to get would likely drive increase use far more than the free. Did you just stop reading after I said something you disagreed with?

These things aren't mutually exclusive.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Yeah, if you qualify for their program AKA are dirt poor.

Your comment reeks of the 'the poor have plenty of health options! they have the ER!' mentality.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Are we pretending Obamacare wasn't passed?

Either way this derail is irrelevant, the point is that tying health insurance to employment is inefficient and costly. It makes much more sense for everyone to just have a more long-term solution instead of having to hop around every time you get a new job.

We only do this because it's ingrained in our culture. Sometimes the market doesn't produce optimal results, no matter how much time you give it.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

and if you are not poor, birth control is about $10 a month at your local pharmacy.

and by the way, there religious institutions wouldn't provide coverage for male birth control either.

so again, go cry me a river.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

are we pretending its been implemented?

there is currently no mandate on corporations to provide health insurance. your suggestion that they only provide coverage because of a mandate to is simply false. most corporations provide coverage because the market demands it, or because they feel like its the right thing to do.

this does not imply that our health care system is efficient, because its not.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

They are when the major obstacle isn't cost.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

How about we just dissolve the less desirable people.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Again, it's not a binary equation. Cost is an obstacle, the fact that you don't think it's a statistically meaningful one is where we disagree.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/health/study-free-birth-control-reducing-teen-pregnancies-abortions

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224132-free-birth-control-cuts-abortion-rate-dramatically-study-finds?lite

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-leads-to-fewer-abortions/

http://www.examiner.com/article/free-birth-control-reduces-number-of-abortions-teen-pregnancies

http://www.christianpost.com/news/free-birth-control-lowers-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-study-claims-82809/

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20121009/opinion/310090022/Editorial-Free-birth-control-would-reduce-abortions-teen-pregnancy-rates

http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121006/OPINION/121009441/1074

http://news.yahoo.com/free-birth-control-means-drastic-drops-unplanned-pregnancies-224643988.html

http://news.yahoo.com/free-birth-control-means-drastic-drops-unplanned-pregnancies-224643988.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/05/free-contraceptives-reduce-abortions-unintended-pregnancies-full-stop/

"Second, program enrollees included high-risk populations like women and girls who’ve already used abortion services once -- and are more likely to have a second abortion -- and women and girls who are economically distressed and may not have means to obtain contraceptive products and services.

That’s important because an IUD, including the device and the physician’s service to place it in the uterus, can cost between $800 and $1,000. Since an IUD lasts at least five years, it saves money in the long run over a monthly cost of roughly $15-$25 for pills, but the up-front charge is prohibitive for many women."

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I like how you lumped in all forms of 'birth control' into 10 dollars a month. Because IUDs are 10 dollars are month, am I right?

Also, the pill isn't OTC.

I mean, you can't get any more wrong than this. Women use the pill for a lot more than just birth control.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

They provide it because they have to. Because we've developed a society that expects them to do so. It always boggles the mind how business interests are opposed to public health plans, considering the massive savings they would get not having to cover their employees anymore.

Although I really have no idea what you mean by 'the market'. It's a delightfully nebulous term that you can use to justify any transfer of goods and services. Why do people buy so much moldy ketchup? The market! Just because 'the market' demands it, does not mean it is good.

I suppose I misspoke when I said 'mandate', due to that being a government word, but I believe that corporations would not offer health care if it wasn't expected of them by society or 'the market'.

Although in 2014 the word mandate will be applicable, and there's nothing you can do about it.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

They provide it because they have to

no, they don't have to. they provide coverage to recruit / retain employees, or because they feel like its the right thing to do.

Although I really have no idea what you mean by 'the market'.

supply and demand.

Just because 'the market' demands it, does not mean it is good.

so?

I believe that corporations would not offer health care if it wasn't expected of them by society or 'the market'

in other words, corporations provide health insurance because the market demands it. glad we're in agreement.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

life is so hard!

but actually, IUD's are cheaper than birth control pills if you amortize the cost over the useful life.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

Although in 2014 the word mandate will be applicable, and there's nothing you can do about it.

which is funny, because companies can just choose to drop coverage altogether. they would pay a fee of about $2,000, but over time that would be recovered in lower labor costs.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

If you amortize the cost over the useful life. I gotta write that one down. That is some Grade A hilarity.

Either way, providing birth control would save billions in prevented abortions, and of course an untold amount in government-assisted children. So there's that.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Considering the people likely to be dropped are earning slave wages anyway, I doubt the fine would be a wise investment.

But please, I'd love to see how that works out for them.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

and if you really care about access to birth control, your time and effort is better spent getting it OTC, as opposed to wasting time and effort in a constitutional debate over religious freedom.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

im sure their accountants will figure it out.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

no, they don't have to. they provide coverage to recruit / retain employees, or because they feel like its the right thing to do.

Okay fine, this is a reasonable assertion. We can agree to disagree.

in other words, corporations provide health insurance because the market demands it. glad we're in agreement.

It's not a good thing, however. Before this derail where I admittedly misspoke, my point was that our system was inefficient and other countries do it better. Your claim is that even in a public system, corporations would still offer health care. Why do we not see this in actual examples of countries with socialized medicine? There are companies that provide health care, but that is their business, not an added benefit.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Sure.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

That's not an argument. "Why talk about Topic A when you can talk about Topic B?" I can talk about companies using religious exceptions as a way to deny coverage and also talk about the lack of OTC birth control or how offering IUDs and the pill for free would reduce costs over time.

To recap though: Your claim about 'you can get birth control for $10 a month' is not correct for the kinds we're talking about allegedly being denied in the corporate health coverage. It also represents a fundamental lack of understanding (or maybe you just don't care, whatever) about the matter at hand and what's at stake.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

Why do we not see this in actual examples of countries with socialized medicine?

does Canada count (http://www.hrinfodesk.com/preview.asp?article=28984)?

According to Statistics Canada, over the course of the survey period (1999 to 2005), the number of workplaces providing non-wage benefits rose by over six percent, giving almost three-quarters of all Canadian workers (74 percent) access to at least one non-wage benefit. Health benefits plans are the most common type of non-wage benefit in Canada. Fifty-nine percent of workers have life and disability insurance, 56 percent have dental plans and 51 percent have supplemental medical insurance.