Corporate Religion
28/11/12 17:32![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsA 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: 30/11/12 05:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/11/12 05:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/11/12 08:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/11/12 14:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/11/12 20:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/11/12 20:50 (UTC)(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 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 16:07 (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 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 20:33 (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 20:40 (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.
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 00:09 (UTC)Of those, dental plan is the only one that appears to be a replacement for primary health insurance.
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 00:12 (UTC)i think its pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 05:45 (UTC)So wait, you just defeated your own point, didn't you? That these things aren't replacements?
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 05:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 19:33 (UTC)But I guess we're just arguing semantics now.
Canada's system is better than the US, so I'm glad you're at least educating yourself about the clearly superior system, while America continues to wallow in its inefficient, outdated model.
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/12 19:42 (UTC)I said,
even if the government provided coverage, there would still be a market for private coverage, and there would be corporations offering coverages in that market.
you eventually said,
Why do we not see this in actual examples of countries with socialized medicine?
i showed you examples of corporations offering insurance coverage in Canada. instead of just admitting you were wrong, you say,
I was clearly talking about a REPLACEMENT for their primary health plans.
which is funny, beause in Canda this is illegal.
then you say,
I'm glad you're at least educating yourself about the clearly superior system
which is even funnier, because you obviously don't even know how their system works.
(no subject)
Date: 3/12/12 06:07 (UTC)Anyway, you're just going for internet points now, you know exactly what my point is now and your only goal now is internet points.
I mean really, the life insurance stuff was just hilarious and you know it.
(no subject)
From:(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 20:26 (UTC)But please, I'd love to see how that works out for them.
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 1/12/12 20:34 (UTC)