Corporate Religion
28/11/12 17:32![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
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?
* 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?
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 03:31 (UTC)In fact, corporations are trying their hardest to deny coverage to people, like in the case of Walmart.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 05:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 05:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 05:47 (UTC)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?
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 11:17 (UTC)These things aren't mutually exclusive.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 11:19 (UTC)Your comment reeks of the 'the poor have plenty of health options! they have the ER!' mentality.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 11:20 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 16:01 (UTC)and by the way, there religious institutions wouldn't provide coverage for male birth control either.
so again, go cry me a river.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 16:07 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 16:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 17:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 19:35 (UTC)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."
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 19:38 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 19:42 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:00 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:04 (UTC)but actually, IUD's are cheaper than birth control pills if you amortize the cost over the useful life.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:15 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:23 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:26 (UTC)But please, I'd love to see how that works out for them.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:33 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:39 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:40 (UTC)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.