Hobby Lobby Confusion:
Hobby Lobby Confusion:
Somebody lawyerish was being interviewed about the Hobby Lobby thing, and said the decision included something that I'm going to paraphrase as "they can get the coverage elsewhere", and the government failed to show that this was a problem beyond a certain standard that had to be met. In other words, to me it sounded like as long as the coverage was available some way that wasn't too big of a deal to access, it was ok for the employer to not offer coverage.
Having had insurance through an employer, I know that they basically say, here, this is what we're offering, take it or leave it. You might have choices within that, but if they won't cover contraception, then they won't cover it. Are they assuming that the employees will be offered HSAs, and should use that to cover it? Are they assuming that the employees have the option of something entirely through the ACA in their state instead of the employer coverage? Or is this a legal technical thing that I'm clueless about?
Somebody lawyerish was being interviewed about the Hobby Lobby thing, and said the decision included something that I'm going to paraphrase as "they can get the coverage elsewhere", and the government failed to show that this was a problem beyond a certain standard that had to be met. In other words, to me it sounded like as long as the coverage was available some way that wasn't too big of a deal to access, it was ok for the employer to not offer coverage.
Having had insurance through an employer, I know that they basically say, here, this is what we're offering, take it or leave it. You might have choices within that, but if they won't cover contraception, then they won't cover it. Are they assuming that the employees will be offered HSAs, and should use that to cover it? Are they assuming that the employees have the option of something entirely through the ACA in their state instead of the employer coverage? Or is this a legal technical thing that I'm clueless about?
My understanding is that they have allowed HL to opt out of covering only certain types of contraception.
ReplyDeleteAnd in allowing the opt-out, they implied that HHS would have to engage in some kind of alternate rule-making to fulfill the law (providing access to the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives), without requiring objectors to offer it in their own policy.
ReplyDeleteYeah, who knows what they are going to come up with.
ReplyDeleteThere is already a work-around for religious-based nonprofits that people assume will be applied here as well. Basically, the insurance company still has to pay for the coverage but the company is off the hook, because, paperwork. (Really it is hardly different)
ReplyDeleteExcept that workaround is currently also being challenged and known chimpfucker William Pryor approved a preliminary injunction against it pending appeal in the 11th circuit yesterday, literally within hours of the HL decision coming down and drawing directly on the logic[1] of it.
ReplyDeleteAccording to said appeal, even filing the paperwork that says "hey, we don't do this" is TOO MUCH SIN.
[1] for certain values thereof
Most "legal experts" (ha!) seem to believe the Supremes were specifically telling said Monkey Fucker (and others) "Hey, bro, it's cool, let the bitches have this one." That he is a douche that would deliberately misinterpret them didn't seem to be in the SCOTUS plan.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the explanations. My head still hurts, but it understands the source of its pain better.
ReplyDeleteJames Vogel I have no doubt that they will continue to be unsatisfied until they chip away far more than they already have. But the rationalization of the day is that HHS can make accommodations such that women are not burdened any more, and HL is burdened less.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why it's OK to stick it to insurance companies and/or the federal government in this case. And the decision as rendered just makes the whole thing an exercise in childish nitpickery. And there is a 0% chance that these assholes will be satisfied as long as women have any reasonably rights at all.
I think the distinction is between closely privately held companies (which, if they're family companies, can be imagined to have a coherent opinion on religious matters) and all other companies (and the government) which can't.
ReplyDeleteWhether there are closely privately held insurance companies to whom that ruling might apply, I have absolutely no idea.
Apparently 90% of US corporations are considered "closely held"[1], so just running the odds, I'm guessing yes.
ReplyDelete[1] http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/closely-held-corporations.html; I can't speak to the accuracy of this source in specific but I've seen the 90% figure multiple places.
Huh. I had the impression that closely held companies were in the minority, but I'm not even sure why I thought that.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I was unconsciously restricting myself to Really Big Companies, which (I thought-- this seems not to be true, either) have a tendency to not be closely held, because it's hard to get Really Big without having one or more rounds of investment capital.
Venture capital rounds still make your company closely held, though, I think.
ReplyDeleteThat's why IPOs are such a big deal. Until the IPO, you're closely held and you have a max number of shareholders (legally mandated). But the 100% that the 90% is a part of does include the local hotdog cart and FotR as well as Exxon -- Small businesses there are a lot of.
I suspect that if you go by percentage of the gross national product the proportion earned by closely held companies is a lot smaller than that pure 90%-by-count.