Heard and seen many comments that just not getting insurance through your employer would solve "the problem".
Heard and seen many comments that just not getting insurance through your employer would solve "the problem". The alternatives being either you pay or the government pays. I don't see anyone running out and advocating a single payer system, nor do I see anyone running out and establishing a way to be certain everyone has a financial situation that facilitates paying for their own coverage. However, it seems to me that that isn't really the problem. It's part of it, or a symptom of it, but I don't think it's the mychorrizal fungus at its root.
The problem is that there are people who want to be free to live by their own beliefs, but be able to impose their beliefs on others. Granted, there's a long and glorious tradition of that in this country. Nevertheless, freedom of religion means you will have to tolerate people who don't believe the same things you do, just as they will have to tolerate your beliefs. Unless there's something like a core belief in sacrificing children to a dark and brooding deity (or frozen zombies), in which case society probably has an overriding interest at stake that would preclude tolerating that particular religious practice (require building a large ice wall), scary deity (zombie) notwithstanding.
The problem is that there are people who want to be free to live by their own beliefs, but be able to impose their beliefs on others. Granted, there's a long and glorious tradition of that in this country. Nevertheless, freedom of religion means you will have to tolerate people who don't believe the same things you do, just as they will have to tolerate your beliefs. Unless there's something like a core belief in sacrificing children to a dark and brooding deity (or frozen zombies), in which case society probably has an overriding interest at stake that would preclude tolerating that particular religious practice (require building a large ice wall), scary deity (zombie) notwithstanding.
Alistair Young Nobody requires those other people to provide them with products and serrvices they think are morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteYou are totally free to not hire people.
We regulate employment to hell and back, and this isn't even vaguely the most onerous part of it.
You are even totally free to not provide health insurance as part of your compensation package. You just forego huge-ass tax breaks for doing so.
ReplyDeleteIf you want the huge-ass tax breaks, the health coverage you provide in lieu of just handing an equivalent amount of money to your employees has to meet certain standards.
Unless meeting those standards makes baby Jesus cry. Apparently.
Alistair Young Hobby Lobby doesn't provide any of that.
ReplyDeleteThey pay insurance premiums. That's it. What their employees do with that insurance is on their own consciences, surely?
Hobby Lobby can go fuck itself.
Alistair Young Yeah, I couldn't figure out a precise way to say what I meant to say. Probably still can't. Problems of living in a pluralistic (#10 on a list of much abused words) society, and all that.
ReplyDeleteWhen they switched to plastic money in Canada, rumors went wild that it smelled like maple syrup. Untrue, but some people thought money smelled pretty good until it was debunked.
Jasper Janssen I think the argument includes not just first degree, i.e., terminating a pregnancy yourself, but any potential association by extension. Meaning, if I pay for insurance that might pay for something I consider abortion, it's like I had the abortion. Or even if you don't pay for it, but you are the key point that made it available to someone else who might have an abortion, you are culpable. So I don't want to have anything to do with it, even peripherally. Whether or not they are required to provide the health insurance in the first place would address, somewhat, your point. If they are not legally required to provide health insurance, which I'm pretty sure they aren't, then that's their out.
On the other point, I am pretty sure that legally, unless they are a religious organization (and even then, maybe), they cannot not hire people because of their personal beliefs or lifestyle choices. In fact, it is illegal to ask such questions. So in this case, I suppose they could just not hire any female employees. Unfortunately, it would be pretty tough now for them to prove that they weren't discriminating against women just because they could get pregnant and have an abortion. Prior to this, they might have made up something and been believed, but not now.
Sorry - short version - they were looking to make a federal case out of it, and they did!
ReplyDeleteWell, they also pretty much can't not hire women because it would be damned hard to get enough men to want to work there, given the crap pay, the shitty working conditions, and the fact that pretty much the only real perk is the discount. I mean, it's not like men NEVER buy plastic flowers and glue guns, but it's definitely a female-dominated market.
ReplyDeleteBut they could look Fabulous!
ReplyDeleteAlistair Young Then don't pay people in chits.
ReplyDeleteAlistair Young Every policy is a tradeoff. Newspaper censorship is too high a burden relative to whatever the advantages of such a law might be; so the court has previously held, and so I agree.
ReplyDeletePaying for employee health insurance (in lieu of giving them cash money (yay tax breaks)) and requiring that that health insurance to meet a certain standard regardless of what a certain narrow interpretation of what some Bronze Age nomads wrote down (and translated 3-4 times between then and now) is somewhat less of a burden and comparing it to newspaper censorship is hyperbole at best.
Now a certain percentage of SCOTUS has ruled it is still too high a burden, which merely confirms my opinion that a certain percentage of SCOTUS are chimpfucking idiots and that Bronze Age nomadic mythology is a shitty basis for public policy.
Alistair Young Jesus Christ, man, I DO THAT NOW.
ReplyDeleteWe pay for all sorts of things that I have ethical and moral objections to with my taxes right fucking now. I still pay my fucking taxes.
John Dilick re: conscience - Should be, and that's my opinion, but my rambling response up there is my guess as to the supposedly religious morals argument being made. Not that I am completely clueless that there is money involved, as per James Vogel .
ReplyDeleteWow. My feed is not as fast as you guys are.
ReplyDeleteNo, that is actually the best argument. That's the whole point of having a government.
ReplyDeleteNow I know you don't agree with having one of those, but we're trying to have a discussion in the real world.
Alistair Young
ReplyDeleteA) They don't shoot tax dodgers, they imprison them.
B) My response was a direct response to YOU, not the situation. You asked me to consider a hypothetical that was not, actually, hypothetical. I was pointing that out.
My argument is that they sell hobby supplies, not insurance. They should have NO SAY WHATSOEVER in how the insurance business is conducted.
Alistair Young The point is that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. If you want to have moral qualms about shit, be my guest. but when it impacts someone else who doesn't have those opinions, that stops mattering.
ReplyDeleteJasper Janssen There is a line of thought that holds that "forcing" Hobby Lobby to "pay for contraceptives" is exactly as much a punch in the face as Hobby Lobby's response of "you can't have contraceptives BECAUSE JESUS".
ReplyDeleteI obviously think this position is horseshit because of (a) the discussion upthread about them basically wanting the tax breaks without being held to the same standard as other companies, which is exactly the sort of rent-seeking nonsense I normally expect libertarian-types to oppose, but (le shrug), (b) my days of not giving a shit about peoples' "BECAUSE JESUS" opt-outs on public policy are rapidly coming to a middle, and (c) the burdens and interests being weighed in each case are not identical.
But there you have it.
Yes, but that line of thought is literally insane.
ReplyDeleteI take part of my earlier comment back - looks like they pay $14/hour now, which is about double what it was when I worked there 10ish years ago.
ReplyDeleteI bet the environment still sucks though.