Judge allows religious company to reject Obamacare contraceptive coverage

[Serephino]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/judge-allows-religious-company-to-reject-obamacare-contraceptive-coverage-for-time-being/2012/11/16/fe408904-3051-11e2-af17-67abba0676e2_story.html

And so it starts.  They may donate money to charity, but they are a business that makes profits.  I'm afraid of what will come next.

[Moraline]

And this is why Canada has Universal Health Coverage.

[LunarSage]

Good for that judge.  Just because the employer has certain beliefs does not mean that their employees must be forced to the same.  I personally find it sickening when a company's owners try to force their religion and beliefs on their employees. 

EDIT:  Wait... approves?  o.O

That's not Hobby Lobby?  I heard they were denied rather harshly.

[Lux12]

Good for that judge.  Just because the employer has certain beliefs does not mean that their employees must be forced to the same.  I personally find it sickening when a company's owners try to force their religion and beliefs on their employees. 

EDIT:  Wait... approves?  o.O

That's not Hobby Lobby?  I heard they were denied rather harshly.

This exactly. This person has no right to try and press their convictions onto their employees. If they so desire they should be able to obtain what they desire.This man does not have to use the stuff personally, so why should he care?

Unfortunately the bastard didn't get told off and forced to do so...

[LunarSage]

Matthew S. Bowman, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, which brought the suit on behalf of Tyndale, said in an email that Bible publishers “should be free to do business according to the book that they publish.”

So... if a publisher puts out a book based on genocide, they should be free to practice their business in that manner?

An extreme analogy, but I feel it's a valid one.  I'm Christian and I wonder what's so freaking special about the Bible that these for profit companies shouldn't have to abide by federal law.

[Oniya]

Unfortunately, the fact that they are a Bible publishing company means that I can't threaten to take my business elsewhere - I already did that.

[Lux12]

I say convince someone to buy a ton of bibles from them and then have them threaten to take their business elsewhere if they straighten their brains out. :p

[Callie Del Noire]

I find myself wondering if I work for a company run by a Christian Scientist.. does that mean HIS beliefs limit MY options for the company plan?

[Serephino]

Apparently it does.  What is scaring me is that if one person gets away with it, anyone else will be able to use it as a precedence.  Next you'll have people claiming to be religious because they're cheap. 

[TaintedAndDelish]

He added: “The Obama administration is not entitled to disregard religious freedom.”

The have a funny concept of freedom.  I call that restriction.

I don't get how those who ran this company think that they should have any say in what coverage their employees choose to exercise. Likewise, would their religious freedom argument protect the religious freedom of their employees if it differed from their own? If an employee 's religion was Voo Doo, how concerned would they be about that employee's religious freedom?

Sometimes people just suck.

[Lux12]

The have a funny concept of freedom.  I call that restriction.

I don't get how those who ran this company think that they should have any say in what coverage their employees choose to exercise. Likewise, would their religious freedom argument protect the religious freedom of their employees if it differed from their own? If an employee 's religion was Voo Doo, how concerned would they be about that employee's religious freedom?

Sometimes people just suck.

Indeed. This also doesn't take into consideration the religious beliefs of those working for them and thus infringes on their own religious freedom. That sad truth is if it were a person of another religion they would likely have been greeted by a less than favorable response when compared with a Christian's.

[Beguile's Mistress]

The most simple solution is for the employer to stop paying for the healthcare package.  Employees would then be free to purchase the type of coverage they find better suited their needs.  The employees could try and convince the employer to cough up what they would have spent and give it to the employees. 

The employees could also approach the coverage provider for additional coverage they could pay for out of pocket.

The needs and beliefs of both sides need to be considered equally.

[Valerian]

Tyndale is a very, very religious publishing company.  As in, they publish only religious and inspirational books, with a few heavily religious-themed novels here and there.  I've always gotten the impression that most people who apply there are also religious (the two reps from there that I've met both were), though that's hardly a guarantee, especially given the scarcity of jobs these days.

Part of the problem in these early days might also be people misunderstanding the details of the act and perhaps filing lawsuits in a panic.  Something really needs to be done to fix that.  :/

[TaintedAndDelish]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they are failing to separate business from religion. Likewise, how does it effect them if an employee chooses to have an abortion, for example? Its not like they are making the choice themselves. If they only hire /attract religious folks with similar values, then that option will not be exercised anyway.

As for not providing healthcare, I don't think that's an option? I thought that Obama made it so that all employers MUST provide healthcare?

[Lux12]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they are failing to separate business from religion. Likewise, how does it effect them if an employee chooses to have an abortion, for example? Its not like they are making the choice themselves. If they only hire /attract religious folks with similar values, then that option will not be exercised anyway.

As for not providing healthcare, I don't think that's an option? I thought that Obama made it so that all employers MUST provide healthcare?

Indeed.It's not only apparently going against the law in some ways, it's disturbing that they would link two things that should not be tied together so closely, religion and business.

[Torch]

As for not providing healthcare, I don't think that's an option? I thought that Obama made it so that all employers MUST provide healthcare?

No, that's incorrect. Employers with less than 50 employees do not have to provide healthcare. Employers with more than 50 employees will have to pay a penalty if they do not provide employer sponsored health care.

The problem lies in that many employers will simply choose to pay the penalty because doing so will be cheaper for them than paying for coverage. It will come down to costs vs. benefits.

[LunarSage]

Aren't the penalties like up to 1.3 million dollars a day?

[vtboy]

So, by this judge's reasoning, then, if an employer (or, more accurately, the employer's owner, since most businesses of any size are some form of juridical entity) is a member of one of those cornflake sects that preaches blood transfusion is an abomination in the eyes of god, the employer can refuse to provide health insurance which would cover transfusions. Am I missing something?

[Serephino]

That seems to be about it.  It's an infringement on their religious beliefs to pay for insurance that would save your life in a way that violates their religion's rules.  It's completely stupid because, no, what I would chose to do with my body has nothing to do with them.  I am not Christian, and completely fine with anything that prevents unwanted pregnancy.  It's like, women need jobs, but if they want birth control they're going to have to ask during the interview if the employer is a Christian that is against birth control or not. 

[Torch]

Aren't the penalties like up to 1.3 million dollars a day?

Not sure where you heard that. The penalty is $2000 multiplied by the number of employees in excess of 30. The penalty will increase over time, but nothing even close to 1MM.

[Missy]

Which would be an infringement on religious freedoms.

You don't hire or fire your employers based on your religion, you don't tell tell them what kind of healthcare you will offer to pay for based on your religion either.

As long as the company offers public hiring applications then they ought to be expected to behave towards their employees like every other company, the personal political, religious, philosophical or any other leanings of the owners should have no bearing on the expectation between employee and employer.

[Serephino]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/20/us-usa-healthcare-oklahoma-court-idUSBRE8AJ05420121120?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FhealthNews+%28Reuters+Health+News%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

I knew more challenges would be coming, but at least this judge saw some sense and denied the ridiculous challenge.

[Funguy81]

The most simple solution is for the employer to stop paying for the healthcare package.  Employees would then be free to purchase the type of coverage they find better suited their needs.  The employees could try and convince the employer to cough up what they would have spent and give it to the employees. 

The employees could also approach the coverage provider for additional coverage they could pay for out of pocket.

The needs and beliefs of both sides need to be considered equally.

You know...the second idea is a hell of an idea. It does serve that both sides keep their beliefs in place while providing what is needed.

[vtboy]

You know...the second idea is a hell of an idea. It does serve that both sides keep their beliefs in place while providing what is needed.

I'm sure there are many far better approaches than the ACA to expansion of health care coverage. But, the real worry here is the quality of the jurisprudence of U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton and those of his ilk who somewhere got the misbegotten notion that individuals may constitutionally exempt their secular activities from the requirements of law by claiming some religious scruple. The principle at stake strikes at the very capacity of a government to govern and is by no means limited to the tension over reproductive issues.

My antipathy for organized religion aside, I've got to say I just don't see the other side of this issue. The law does not require the employer to use contraception or to put it in its employees' drinking water. All the employer is required to do is pay money and leave the decisions to others. If only the law could also relieve this judge of making decisions....   

[LunarSage]

Not sure where you heard that. The penalty is $2000 multiplied by the number of employees in excess of 30. The penalty will increase over time, but nothing even close to 1MM.

I read it on Snopes, actually.  It was in regards to a different company (Hobby Lobby), but the exact same circumstances.

Hobby Lobby faces a January 1 [2013] deadline to comply with the mandate to provide all FDA-approved contraceptives. Failure to do so would entail a penalty of up to $1.3 million per day.

[Trieste]

Just remember that judges are like tiny gods in their courtroom, and can do things like leverage fines above and beyond the minimum the law says. That's what it looks to be in this case.

[TheGlyphstone]

Or it's just like what Torch said, $2000/day * employees not covered...that would require 650 employees...though they have 13,000 employees, which would be far more than that...

[Torch]

Or it's just like what Torch said, $2000/day * employees not covered...that would require 650 employees...though they have 13,000 employees, which would be far more than that...

The penalty is $2000 annually, not per day. Not sure where that came from either.

And remember, these figures only apply to full-time employees. An employer can easily skirt the requirement by maintaining majority part-time work force.

[LunarSage]

Well it wasn't just Snopes that mentioned the potential 1.3 million dollar per day fines for Hobby Lobby.  If you'd like I can find other sources.

[Trieste]

I think the point is that it's not necessarily standard.

[LunarSage]

Ah, alright.  No worries.  The articles I read made it sound (to me at least) as though they may have been standard, but that's likely just how it got worded.

I was like "1.3 million a day?  Wow, just about any business would go under in a month or two".

[Torch]

Well it wasn't just Snopes that mentioned the potential 1.3 million dollar per day fines for Hobby Lobby.  If you'd like I can find other sources.

That's the potential fine for the Hobby Lobby Corp. for refusing to provide coverage for what they describe as "abortion-inducing" contraceptives. Hobby Lobby already provides health coverage for their employees, but they are refusing to cover specific drugs.

I'm referring to the fine to employers for not providing health coverage at all, which was my response to TaintedandDelish's question.

[loki]

And remember, these figures only apply to full-time employees. An employer can easily skirt the requirement by maintaining majority part-time work force.

And this is how the big companies will get out of paying healthcare, rather it is with or against their religion. It happened before when the last recession hit and will do so again. It is actually starting up again with a lot of big companies right now. While it is the easiest way to stop Obama care and stop all the "it's against my ...blah, blah, blah" it starts a new disturbing trend that will lead to many other problems down the road.

[Lux12]

And this is how the big companies will get out of paying healthcare, rather it is with or against their religion. It happened before when the last recession hit and will do so again. It is actually starting up again with a lot of big companies right now. While it is the easiest way to stop Obama care and stop all the "it's against my ...blah, blah, blah" it starts a new disturbing trend that will lead to many other problems down the road.

Gotta love those cheap ass millionaires.

The fruits of cheapness are to be blunt shitty results.

[Callie Del Noire]

You know I was listening to NPR today and they made a comment that stuck with me.. companies that invest in their people, and keep to the more tradition 30% gains versus the 400%+ of some CEOs.. and spread the gains down the chain to the people tend to do 15 times better comparable companies of similar size and market. (an example was Whole Grains vs some of their competitors.)

[Lux12]

You know I was listening to NPR today and they made a comment that stuck with me.. companies that invest in their people, and keep to the more tradition 30% gains versus the 400%+ of some CEOs.. and spread the gains down the chain to the people tend to do 15 times better comparable companies of similar size and market. (an example was Whole Grains vs some of their competitors.)

But the people at the top don't care at all about those below them and they're out to make as much money for themselves as possible.They do not think about these things let alone care about those below them.

[Callie Del Noire]

But the people at the top don't care at all about those below them and they're out to make as much money for themselves as possible.They do not think about these things let alone care about those below them.

But they DO notice that the company is doing 15 times better than it's peers.

[Torch]

But the people at the top don't care at all about those below them and they're out to make as much money for themselves as possible.They do not think about these things let alone care about those below them.

Actually, "the people at the top" (as you refer to them) are out to make money for the company's investors (assuming the company in question is a publicly held entity). If the executive board and other division directors were only out for themselves, no company would survive very long.

Just wanted to make that distinction clear.

[Callie Del Noire]

Actually, "the people at the top" (as you refer to them) are out to make money for the company's investors (assuming the company in question is a publicly held entity). If the executive board and other division directors were only out for themselves, no company would survive very long.

Just wanted to make that distinction clear.

It could be argued why some companies aren't thriving or growing as much as they should. If your executives are more concerned about 500% growth in their income when the company is doing like 40% worse.. I'd say that they are doing just that.. of course those tend to be the most extreme of the leeches out there.

I think it was things like that killed the Bally Pinball company in the mid to late 90s for example.

[Torch]

It could be argued why some companies aren't thriving or growing as much as they should. If your executives are more concerned about 500% growth in their income when the company is doing like 40% worse.. I'd say that they are doing just that.. of course those tend to be the most extreme of the leeches out there.

Unfortunately, the general public has the perception that the extreme examples are the norm. They aren't.

No CEO in his right mind wants his company to go out of business. They want to make money for their investors and shareholders. These guys went to Wharton and Harvard. While they may be greedy and soulless, they aren't stupid.

[Callie Del Noire]

Unfortunately, the general public has the perception that the extreme examples are the norm. They aren't.

No CEO in his right mind wants his company to go out of business. They want to make money for their investors and shareholders. These guys went to Wharton and Harvard. While they may be greedy and soulless, they aren't stupid.

Still you have to admit the bonuses have gone up radically over the years. From 45% to something like 300% of the workers levels.

A lot of it is stuff that came out of the 'golden parachute/poison pills' of the 80s and 90s. Still those big bonuses in the big companies have to be counter productive at times.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I've experienced two types of hyper-growth CEOs. 

One is the one who understands that you can only grow so big before there is not more room to grown and they work to develop new products and look for new uses for existing ones.  Their pay is mostly bonuses and the growth and sales figures determine the amount.

The other is the one who also understands the growth numbers and whose pay is based on growth and sales but they push the company to grow as fast and as much as possible so they can take the money and run to another CEO spot where they can do the same.

The best CEOs are the ones who go after moderate growth, work to develop new products and set up a profit sharing structure that rewards the share holders or owners as well as the people who generate the profits.

[Torch]

Still you have to admit the bonuses have gone up radically over the years. From 45% to something like 300% of the workers levels.

A lot of it is stuff that came out of the 'golden parachute/poison pills' of the 80s and 90s. Still those big bonuses in the big companies have to be counter productive at times.

If executive compensation is tied to profits (i.e. stock prices), then the bonuses are not out of line, not even at 300% of lowest paid employee's salary. Remember there are other components to executive compensation besides salary and bonuses, mainly equity options, deferred compensation, and long term incentives. If a company can't pay top executives on par with their peers, they will have a difficult time attracting top talent and this will be reflected in defecting investors.

Defecting investors (and their capital) is bad news for any company.

[Callie Del Noire]

If executive compensation is tied to profits (i.e. stock prices), then the bonuses are not out of line, not even at 300% of lowest paid employee's salary. Remember there are other components to executive compensation besides salary and bonuses, mainly equity options, deferred compensation, and long term incentives. If a company can't pay top executives on par with their peers, they will have a difficult time attracting top talent and this will be reflected in defecting investors.

Defecting investors (and their capital) is bad news for any company.

Interesting points.  Thanks for highlighting them. Something to think on.

[Serephino]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84226.html

Just as I thought, more challenges.  This is so completely stupid, but I hope they don't find in the college's favor.

[Serephino]

http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&abbr=daily2_&page=NewsArticle&id=36053

Now this is what I like to see.