from the corporate-personas-are-better-than-people dept.
This morning the US Supreme Court released a 5-4 decision that declares employers may object, on religious grounds, to providing contraception as part of their health care packages to employees.
Related Stories
The Center for American Progress reports:
The Supreme Court's recent Hobby Lobby decision, which allowed some for-profit companies to claim a religious exemption to Obamacare's contraception mandate, has sparked a heated debate over the definition of religious liberty and its role in modern society. At this point, even a Satantic cult has decided to weigh in.
The Satanic Temple - a faith community that describes itself as facilitating "the communication and mobilization of politically aware Satanists, secularists, and advocates for individual liberty" - has launched a new campaign seeking a religious exemption to certain anti-abortion laws that attempt to dissuade women from ending a pregnancy. The group says they have deeply held beliefs about bodily autonomy and scientific accuracy, and those beliefs are violated by state-level "informed consent" laws that rely on misleading information about abortion risks.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Blackmoore on Monday June 30 2014, @09:03PM
Where Corporations are people, and Women aren't.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Oligonicella on Monday June 30 2014, @09:14PM
Hopefully, no teeth shattered with the impact of your knee on your chin.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BasilBrush on Monday June 30 2014, @09:32PM
It's hardly a knee jerk reaction. The stupidity of the US legal system treating corporations as people has long been complained of. Companies now trying to dictate the reproductive status of their employees is similarly dumb. And belief in an invisible friend, who's opinions you claim to know, is not an excuse.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @09:39PM
The supreme court of a nation originally settled by people seeking religious freedom sets a precedent based on religious grounds.
Why are you surprised?
(Score: 2) by snick on Monday June 30 2014, @11:22PM
bzzt. Wrong.
Go back and read the opinion. they explicitly stated that this _only_ applies to christians who want to dictate to women. If the Jehova's witnesses, or scientologists try any shit like this they will be slapped so hard it will make their head spin.
(I'm paraphrasing, but that is essentially what they said)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @12:25AM
And I just wonder how they will justify that when the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Scientologists inevitably bring their own case before the court. Are they just going to repeal the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday July 01 2014, @06:31AM
Wow! Much discrimination! So us Buddhists and Baha'is had better keep our heads down. Wonder what the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster will have to say about this. If you do not believe in the correlation of pirates and global warming, no health care for you! A-pasta-cite!
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:50PM
How the hell do you say that's not based on religious grounds?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday July 01 2014, @03:43AM
Actually nobody in Britain could stand the pilgrims because they were too uptight. That's why they were run out.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:49AM
"too uptight"... hmm, and i suppose that all dem laws about having to swear that the king was head of the church, having to go to church or face a fine, praying from the same book... thats not uptight, huh... citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1559 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by art guerrilla on Tuesday July 01 2014, @06:33PM
not to mention a bunch (majority? can't remember) being catholics, so are they letting THEIR PERSONAL religion/choices guide OUR CHOICES ? ? ?
shouldn't the (devout) catholics recuse themselves ? ? ?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by e_armadillo on Monday June 30 2014, @10:00PM
They are hardly "dictating the reproductive status" of anyone. They are merely stating which forms of contraception they will and won't cover.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Monday June 30 2014, @11:31PM
And if their little ED pills were not covered by their insurance they would scream bloody murder about it and pray for divine intervention (either to fix their ED or to bring the insurance company to its senses).
Contraceptives requiring a prescription, when used to prevent pregnancy or for other medical needs, are a legitimate medical expense and should be covered by health insurance. Why it isn't included by default in all health insurance plans is beyond me because excluding it can result in more expenses for the insurance company. The costs of contraception to an insurance company are far less than the costs of a single pregnancy and delivery. Now, add all the medical costs that are rung up between being an infant and an adult ... and you're talking a lot of expenses for the health insurer.
If this issue directly affected the gender in power there would not even be a discussion about it. Coverage would be legislated as mandatory.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 30 2014, @11:45PM
If you have ED, your shit is legit broken. There is, however, not a damned thing wrong with a woman should she get knocked up. She may not be happy about it but you ride the unwrapped salami, you takes your bloody chances.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Tuesday July 01 2014, @12:34AM
Pregnancy is not a disease or an illness, but it is a recognized medical condition.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:50AM
unwanted pregnancy puts a HUGE burden on the parents and society. its a crime against society to bring unwanted kids into the world.
as usual, the republicans are 'all for life' as long as it has not been born yet. once its born, its off to war (if you are poor). then, there is no 'culture of life'.
since the US ties healthcare to employment (for all practical purposes) they now are ruling that your employer can invade your privacy and dictate based on HIS belief system, what you are allowed and not allowed. expect this to be extended into other incorrect areas, over time. they just opened the door to huge amounts of abuse.
the supremes continue to show us that they are a bunch of fucking idiots!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 01 2014, @03:48AM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:42AM
so, lets get rid of all birth control pills, then. afterall, no mistakes happen, nothing happens that is not planned and people SHOULD suffer economic slavery just to raise crotchfruit.
yup, you sound like a totally sensible and rational guy. newsletter, please.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:01PM
Oi, get your brain in working order before you shit talk. Part of taking responsibility for your own shit is making sure you take preventative steps if you do not want kids. Another part is paying out of your pocket without bitching that someone else should have to pay and coming up with a rationalization line that makes how you use whatever's between your legs into someone else's responsibility.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Oligonicella on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:09AM
Then use condoms. How hard is it to expect people to take precautions and not expect others to foot their bill? And you have it backwards, the employee in this case has other methods available on the plan but simply wants the pill provided for free. No coercion of belief going on except from employee to employer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @11:11AM
If you make condoms the only available form of contraception, then you remove much of the woman's ability to influence pregnancy. Sure, she can try to refuse sex with a man who doesn't have, or doesn't want one, but women refusing sex seems not to be a very effective way of preventing sex [nih.gov]. Nor does it prevent a man from misusing or deliberately sabotaging a condom. Restricting access to contraception keeps women subservient to male dominance. Female submission is one of the major tenets of Abrahamic religions, so you can not have unfettered religious freedom and gender equality.
Something like 40% of unintended pregnancies end in abortion [guttmacher.org]. Half of pregnancies are unintended. Improving access to contraception is the single most effective method for reducing the number of abortions, but the same groups who oppose abortion oppose contraception - especially the woman-controlled forms of contraception. Either those groups believe that life begins at foreplay or their agenda is wider than protecting the unborn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @11:41AM
No one is saying that you cannot have an abortion, or that you cannot buy contraception. The ruling was for a small subset of companies that feel they they should not have to pay for it. Hobby Lobby has said that it is not opposed to all forms of contraception, just the ones that chemically induce a miscarriage, which to them is no different than an abortion.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:47PM
Yeah, nobody seems to remember that nowhere was that a God rule, but only a personal practice of Paul's AFAIK.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by skater on Tuesday July 01 2014, @11:40AM
Do you know that not all women take birth control to avoid pregnancy? Some women have severe abdominal pain that birth control pills can help relieve. It's either that, or popping lots of ibuprofen, which isn't good for your stomach.
I have a better solution, though: Untangle health insurance with employment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:31PM
You assume the only reason to want the pill is birth control. While this may largely be the case, there are plenty of women out there (I at least have anecdotal references) who take the pill in order to regulate hormones or menstrual cycle. In fact, it is often prescribed by gynecologists for this purpose. The so-called "moral" employers (not to mention you) are taking the oversimplified approach that can only come from someone who reads the Bible way too much and takes it way too literally.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @11:35AM
Contraceptives are more often than not just an excuse to fuck, and there is far too much fucking in America by retards on government welfare that raise moron kids that turn into criminals.
There are legitimate medicinal uses for contraceptives (such as for treating hormone deficiencies) and it is a pity that the women truly needing them are drowned out by the hordes of stupid, lazy, self-obsessed, self-righteous fuck machines.
People should be thankful for any opportunity out there to get a job and make a living. Working is not slavery as some idiot occupy wall street welfare moochers would have you believe because you get paid and you are free to leave whenever you want. If you're not getting paid enough to cover things like healthcare, is it your employers fault? No, because if they didn't hire your whining ass to begin with you'd still be stuck with the same problems (only worse).
Stop spending money on useless shit that you can't afford, save some money and get a fucking job. Any job. You may think you're a super qualified diplomat, but maybe nobody else gives a shit. Start at the bottom like most of the people you complain about that hire slobs like you and help pay your bills. Business owners aren't evil; they just work harder than you and make their own luck.
If you are one of those business owners that is getting screwed to the wall by all the government bullshit and increasing self-righteous welfare class in the almighty USA, I salute you, and pity you at the same time.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:43PM
Because I'm sure most people who take Viagra actually have ED. Totally.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:05PM
It is cost effective for a medical insurance company to provide contraception by default. However, that only applies if the medical insurance company gets the contract. And it appears that there is a market to provide medical insurance which doesn't cover contraception.
It is cost effective for a company to provide medical insurance which includes contraception. However, that only applies if the company is run rationally to maximize profit. It doesn't apply if the best interests of the company are to exercise the personal beliefs of its owners.
So, we have a situation where some people are putting religion ahead of profit and, to support it, others are putting profit ahead of equality. This is a toxic mix. However, there are a few ways to fix the situation:-
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:40AM
and why does the CORPORATION you work for get to decide this highly personal matter for their employees?
you want to be a church, be one. but if you are a business you have no good reason to dictate to employees what health coverage they should receive.
your invisible sky daddy does not give you any more rights even though you seem to think so.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Tuesday July 01 2014, @07:29AM
So why not arbitrarily decide which cancer drugs they will and won't cover? It's a religiously motivated decision about other people's healthcare, since in the US many people are reliant on their employers to provide it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:22PM
So what is to prevent someone like the Koch brothers from refusing to obey environmental laws because it offends their beliefs?
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Monday June 30 2014, @10:19PM
You keep looking at trees and don't see the forest.
Rejoice, for that $Corporation is Christian!
Sure, they won't give you the contraception, but
- you can fu*k up 70x7 times without problems, Matthew 18:22;
- Unlimited budget for loans, no requirements, Matthew 5:42;
- you can sue them and they will fold up and even overcompensate you, MT 5:40;
Now they either follow these *very clear* guidelines, because no Deuteronomy stuff supersedes the Son of God's public address, or they are wolves in sheep's clothes, or maybe they should publish their religion because it's not Christianity.
So, as a Christian I'd not do business with them. As an atheist, I'd not do business with them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @10:26PM
You seem to be working under the assumption that Christians in the US actually follow the words of Christ, rather than picking and choosing whatever they want from The Bible to suit their agendas.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday July 01 2014, @01:42PM
It's a very good thing the Matthew guidelines supersede the Torah for Christians: Otherwise, we'd be stoning disobedient children to death, forcing unwed rape victims to marry their rapist, killing married rape victims if they were in town (because it is assumed in Torah law that if you're raped in town it's because you didn't scream loud enough), selling daughters into slavery, and so forth.
But yeah, these people are about as Christian as Caliph Ali.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @07:30PM
You're reminding me of the Dr. Jenna Jacobs episode of The West Wing. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [memoryhole.net]
The final sentence especially makes me think of the misogynists commenting here.
The scene was based on an actual personality. [wikipedia.org]
(Aaron Sorkin is a genius.)
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @10:01PM
It's a matter of opinion or interpretation of course but:
Mark 10
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
It appears the rules are made for the man, not the other way round, man changes, rule changes. See Matthew 5 too, the rules are not abolished but fulfilled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @11:15AM
Re: "The stupidity of the US legal system treating corporations as people has long been complained of"
True.
Why should corporations pay tax, when their employees, shareholders and customers are all hit with taxes already?
Treating corporations as people is merely a rort by the IRS. The other complaints are just background noise.
(Score: -1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 30 2014, @09:58PM
Where pregnancy is an illness or injury and belongs in healthcare.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by compro01 on Monday June 30 2014, @09:59PM
Pregnancy is a medical condition, therefore it belongs in healthcare.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Oligonicella on Monday June 30 2014, @10:09PM
Prevention of pregnancy is not.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by compro01 on Monday June 30 2014, @10:13PM
Avoiding a medical condition that causes a number of deaths each year (800-1000) unless one wishes for it most decidedly belongs in healthcare.
(Score: 0, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 30 2014, @10:35PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by mj on Monday June 30 2014, @11:21PM
It's the only "non illness" that causes you to physically not able to work and you can't take a pill that stops texting and driving from resulting in accidents.
The nihilists have such good imaginations.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 30 2014, @11:37PM
Yeah, no. Neither of those statements are remotely true.
1a) Pregnancy keeps you from working for zero to four weeks unless you have a very physically stressful job. Any more than that and either something legit medically is wrong or your ass is just lazy. So sayeth the women of my family.
1b) There are a fuckton of things that can keep you from working but are not medical in nature. Being arrested, for instance.
2) You must have really lousy dealers if you can't find a pill that will keep you from being able to text while driving. And don't give me any reductio ad absurdum nonsense because there are drugs with equally as absurd side effects on the market right now.
I know you lot desperately want every inconvenience of being a woman paid for by the government or your employers. No matter how bad you want something to be true so that can happen though, the truth is the truth is the truth and never your wacky definition will it support.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Tuesday July 01 2014, @12:30AM
funny, part of the opinion states that employers can deny it because the government can fill the gap.
arent these people usually advocates for less government involvement in people's lives though?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 01 2014, @03:51AM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 02 2014, @07:21PM
Good grief! The US might get socialized healthcare with universal access to contraception being the thin end of the wedge!
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @11:23AM
Do you mean to equate unintended pregnancy with crime? Because you keep using crimes as metaphors for unintended pregnancy. Now granted, there are crimes that lead to unintended pregnancy, but it is very rarely the pregnant person who committed the crime. You may not be aware that the male-choice contraceptive methods are not 100% effective - condoms can fail or be misused; coitus interruptus is pretty poor. Why is it so awful to put a little power in the woman's domain?
Ah, now I see: being born female is punishment from God, and they should suffer their "inconveniences" with praise and joy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @01:10PM
How do you get from an example demonstrating the falsehood of the post being replied to, to a generalization that he's criminalizing unintended pregnancy?
Also, his last statement had nothing to do with god, you dipshit.
Employers pay their employees to work for them (in a voluntary contractual arrangement where both parties are compensated). They don't pay for the "privilege" of working for their employees. How retarded can you be (you voted for Obama, twice, didn't you)? I know all you welfare bums expect taxpayers to foot the bill for all your welfare-funded televisions, holidays, cars and drugs, but the private sector isn't as fucked up as government (that's usually why works better when government stays out of the way).
I'm guessing all this is going over your head and you'll no doubt come up with some stupidity that bears no relation to what I've actually said, but sometimes it's fun to poke an moron on the left side and see them look over their right shoulder :-)
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:50AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by starcraftsicko on Tuesday July 01 2014, @03:11AM
Moderation of parent is classic abuse of down-modding. Please address!
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:01AM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @11:44AM
Really? A dude claiming that "Pregnancy is as much a medical condition as driving while texting" is making a reasoned, constructive argument that an employer should be able to refuse to cover oral contraceptives, but be compelled to pay for Viagra? I can see where "Funny" might be a fair mod, especially if he'd phrased it more like "Pregnancy and diabetes are medical conditions..." where it would be more clear which side of Poe's law he falls.
No, "Pregnancy is as much a medical condition as driving while texting" is pretty clearly flamebait. Maybe a little less effective because no women ever read SN, but definitely aimed at raising tempers without making any cognitive contribution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @01:25PM
While it may not technically be a "medical condition" in the same way that chlamydia or apparently erectile disfunction is, there are many medical complications that can come with it, such as gestational diabetes, anemia, asthma, depression (both during and after), preeclampsia, placental issues, death of the mother and/or child, and more.
So no, it is definitely not "as much a medical condition as driving while texting is". Its a unique medical condition in a class of its own, because there's nothing else in human experience that requires one person to grow another human being inside themselves, sometimes at the cost of their own life.
(Also, the parent is certainly not a case of moderation abuse. It is correctly moderated, if anything a bit too lenient.)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by mj on Monday June 30 2014, @10:52PM
So they don't cover flu shots now? Preventative medicine is still medicine.
The nihilists have such good imaginations.
(Score: 2) by hybristic on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:14AM
I think the point is, again, the flu is an illness while pregnancy is not. Flu shots are preventing an illness, while not having sex is a completely free contraceptive that is 100% effective.
(Score: 1) by mj on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:18AM
So then controlling their employees behavior off the clock is obviously what they're after then, no? As if the drug tests arn't enough....
Not texting and driving is a 100% effective way to not wreck, but if you do wreck, are injured, an ambulance comes and doctors save you; then they cover that right?
The nihilists have such good imaginations.
(Score: 2) by hybristic on Tuesday July 01 2014, @06:14AM
Firstly, I would like to say that it wasn't my point, but I believe it was the point being made. That said, you are reaching pretty hard right now.
They aren't saying you can't have sex outside of work, go at it as often as you'd like, but don't expect your employer to pay for you to have risk free sex, it's not their job to ensure you don't get knocked up or knock someone up. They have never covered condoms, why should this be any different? If you get a ticket of texting and driving you employer doesn't cover the ticket. If you get in an accident, you are not injured and hospitals can't let you die, but not every insurance plan covers the ambulance ride or any cosmetic surgery needed after the accident. But yeah, they do save your life and you insurance plan probably helps cover parts of that, but seriously it's apples and oranges you're comparing there.
So if you get in an accident, or get an STD yeah your insurance likely covers some of the cost of the coverage. But they do not cover things to prevent you from needing it in the first place, and really why should they? you are completely capable of making choices to avoid these circumstances in 99% of cases, and if you decide to take your life into your own hands it really isn't your employers fault is it? Getting someone pregnant is fairly easy to avoid, even while having regular sex. They aren't firing anyone that decides to purchase the day after pill, they just aren't going to pay for you to get one if you need it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @12:03PM
Right, the employer is saying he would rather not cover the physician visit required to get an oral contraceptive and allow the woman some control over her reproductive state than pay $10,000 for an unintended pregnancy. And if she chooses not to return to work afterwards, or chooses to spend less time at work afterwards, you can hardly fault the company for having few upper-management women. I mean, when their men are involved in an unintended pregnancy, you don't see them asking for extended time off or skipping out of work early.
This assumes that both parties are cooperative, and ignores the fact that 5% of women experience "date rape" [nih.gov] in college. We definitely can't have insurers paying for proper abortions, so what's a woman do to when she gets to experience unwanted, unprotected sex? Thank the Lord for the opportunity to strengthen her Faith?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @01:12PM
Pshaw, everybody knows that women can only get pregnant if they want to. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down, so if you see some slut thats pregnant after being "raped", its pretty clear it was consensual. And even if not, she should just rejoice because its clearly God's will that she, the Whore of Babylon herself, was impregnated through the Hand of God!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:34PM
This assumes, of course, that all sexual contact is consensual. In at least some circumstances women are not given the option of saying no.
Well, at least not yet. Somehow I can't help but think that could change soon. Then, of course, I also wonder where else Hobby Lobby et al will want to take this.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday July 02 2014, @05:24AM
So is your employer required to enable your sex life?
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 02 2014, @07:18PM
Mandatory urine samples + at will employment + sketchy healthcare coverage = sweatshop working conditions
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by yellowantphil on Tuesday July 01 2014, @01:08AM
Or, "where corporations are people but unborn children aren't." Unless you decide that you want to keep the child, and then it's somehow a person again. You can get two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman, but it's considered OK to kill the embryo with the woman's consent.
It gets especially tricky if you are attempting a late-term abortion, but accidentally deliver a live child instead. Whoops, now it's a person! The legal personhood of unborn children seems to depend entirely on the wishes of the mother. I'd say that women don't have it quite that bad in comparison.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:09AM
"when, exactly, does a fetus become a human being?" is a whole other matter entirely. the whole point of "birth control" is to avoid that mess entirely by preventing conception in the first place. its that whole idea of "prevention" that is the issue here, not abortion.
one thing that really strikes me odd is that nobody gives a fuck about "the children" once they're born, but so long as they're quite literally parasites in a human host, its somehow the governments responsibility to ensure they grow to full term? (again, only for that governmental responsibility to end there, rather than ensuring, through things like food stamps, that the child can grow up healthy)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @06:37AM
Well, now magically - contraception concerns only women? Tell me more about it. (I'm father of two, if that can affect your process of thinking)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Monday June 30 2014, @09:06PM
so now that we have precedence for religious exemptions, i'm starting my company, which is firmly buddhist. being buddhist, we object to any and all material attachments, therefore we can not pay our employees. we wish we could, but unfortunately our religious beliefs won't allow it.
(Score: 2) by githaron on Monday June 30 2014, @09:10PM
Don't expect to have employees for very long.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Monday June 30 2014, @09:29PM
Hopefully this will be the same result for those companies that try to prevent elements of healthcare cover.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by compro01 on Monday June 30 2014, @09:38PM
With the unemployed:job openings ratio the USA has right now? Not likely.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Monday June 30 2014, @09:58PM
6.3%. Lowest since 2010. The USA doesn't have an unemployment problem.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by compro01 on Monday June 30 2014, @10:04PM
I said unemployed:job openings ratio, not the unemployment rate.
For every job opening in retail, there are 3 unemployed people [stateofworkingamerica.org].
This kind of employer's market means that employers can get away with a hell of a lot without having to worry about employees quitting, as there's a big pool just waiting for any job.
(Score: 4, Informative) by tathra on Monday June 30 2014, @10:13PM
that number doesnt count the people who gave up on looking. [forbes.com]
the real unemployment rate is closer to 12.7% [about.com], if not higher.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @10:47PM
The govt's numbers are complete fiction. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [shadowstats.com]
the real unemployment rate is closer to 12.7%
Try 23 percent.
Note that the gov't doesn't even get the TREND correct. [shadowstats.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Monday June 30 2014, @09:59PM
Even worse, hobby lobby is a pretty nice retail establishment to work for. I've been to them, my wife likes them aside from the religious nuttiness. They have pretty reasonable operating hours, compared to most retail hellholes, for example.
The reason why I say its worse, is as a dude I don't have to care much about their fruitcake sex beliefs WRT contraceptives, so I can work there and reap the rewards of great hours. Also, looking at the clientele I'll have all the 70 year old crafty babes I can handle (of course their 25 yr old granddaughters are more exciting...) And post medieval era women can't work there because its no longer civilized, so there's an inherent bias by their policies toward men and against women employees.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @11:41PM
> Even worse, hobby lobby is a pretty nice retail establishment to work for.
According to John Oliver, their starting wage is 190% of minimum.
They really do practice what they preach. For good and bad.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday July 01 2014, @05:54PM
I wasn't being sarcastic. It it much like Saudi Arabia, great place to be as long as you're not a woman.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 02 2014, @09:47PM
Do they close on the sabbath or do they follow Mammon on the seventh day?
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday July 06 2014, @11:32AM
"Do they close on the sabbath"
Yes. Six day a week operation, never open on Sundays. Maybe this varies on locality or maybe a corporate rule.
Every Easter locally they put up comical signs WRT being closed on Easter, seeing as they've never opened on a Sunday in the past, they will continue to not open next Easter Sunday.
Also, although they were open on the 4th of July under reduced hours, in context, where retail never closes anymore, they are probably the most likely retail establishment to be closed on any given holiday. For example their (local) crafty competitor opened on Thanksgiving day at 2pm, whereas Hobby Lobby's concession to "Mammon" was opening one hour earlier in the morning on thanksgiving Friday morning.
Having spent excessive time in them, they seem more of an outlet / warehouse / big box store you visit once a quarter to buy 50000 pieces of scrapbook paper, they are not a quikie-mart where you make a 5 minute stop to get an emergency box photo corners. They are huge, like the size of a home depot or walmart and are (Cthulhu help me) an all day shopping destination. Why anyone would spend all day on Thanksgiving selecting from 2 ** 32 slightly different types of yarn to knit is a mystery to me.
Aside from the whole freaky "Father Corporation" trying to regulate your bedroom and dr. office, they really are a nice place to work or have relatives work at (at least, that's how it looks to me from the outside)
The only other comment I can make about the place is when I get dragged along, if I go to the mens room, that place is clean but dusty, obviously not heavily used. Like Indiana Jones exploring in an Amazon warrior woman temple. Its more extreme of a gender bias than anything I've seen in CS / IT / Engineering.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tathra on Monday June 30 2014, @09:34PM
you're missing the point. this is a terrifying precedent. take the worst things about every religion you can think of, and now codify them into company policy. cohabitating without being married? blasphemy, you're fired! courting someone of the same gender? blasphemy, you're fired! women can't come to work while menstrating, women must be covered from head to toe at all times... there's some really repugnant stuff in Deuteronomy that can now be company policy.
if they attempt to single out christianity for these exemptions, that'd be essentially the same as saying the federal government endorses christianity as the country's official religion, which is a direct violation of the first amendment and "separation fo church and state".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Monday June 30 2014, @09:50PM
Its a win for the Christian Taliban and a loss for women's health.
Sad but predictable given the composition of the current court.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tathra on Monday June 30 2014, @09:55PM
the really funny part is the people crying about "encroaching sharia" just made sure it has a clear and safe path to getting established.
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Tuesday July 01 2014, @01:30PM
That seems like the most logical way to make people understand the implications of Religion in the workplace, but I have not heard this mentioned much. They kept going down the "healthcare" aspect. Maybe that was the best bet legally in the courtroom, but in the public sphere this should have been framed as forcing religious beliefs on employees. And of course you have to fear monger to make your point heard, so you use Sharia as an example.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @11:04PM
John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Sonia Sotomayor: Catholic
Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States [wikipedia.org]
Anyone who is the slightest bit surprised by this decision needs an awareness transplant.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by Alfred on Monday June 30 2014, @10:48PM
Don't be too hasty to say this is bad. This allows evolutionists to be exempt for evolving. "I evolved to use [better] tools" becomes an excuse for shootings. Which could take care of almost everything you disagree with.
/sarcasm
However the thing that has always bugged me about evolution is how if you have or have not evolved feelings then that is legit too. If someone does the above then that is a perfectly natural point in their evolution.
>and "separation of church and state".
Which has never existed. Find that line in the constitution while you are at it. Consider tax laws about churches which happen to be laws regarding a religion. Tell congress to stop having prayers everyday too.
The terrifying extreme of religious freedom is like the Taliban killing kids(which make Christians at large look like nice guys). Religious freedom is killing infidels for religions sake (which Christians also don't do).
Stop worrying about the Christians.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Tuesday July 01 2014, @09:44AM
Yeah, because Christians never killed anyone for religious reasons!
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday July 01 2014, @10:57PM
Have we forgotten George W. Bush already? Unilateral war which killed a bunch of civilians of a different religion, ring a bell?
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by demonlapin on Monday June 30 2014, @10:51PM
(Score: 2) by zsau on Tuesday July 01 2014, @11:51PM
"Our standard package is $20,000 plus your fair market rent."
(You accept the offer because the combination is far better than what you could get at your current job. A year passes. The current state of the job market in your industry and area is such that you can't reasonably expect to get another job. You have two children and another one on the way.)
"I'm sorry, but company policy prohibits you to live in one of our houses while [doing something that our religion prohibits]. You will either have to leave your job or stop [doing that thing]."
Now fundamentally, "stop doing that thing" means giving up your life. It's not just a hobby, it's your life with your family. Perhaps you would die if you stopped doing that: for instance, it might mean accepting blood products as treatment for a health condition, or even simply using any standard medical health care for the treatment of chronic conditions.
Now as far as I'm aware no religion currently claims these are banned for non-members. But that doesn't mean a former member (for instance, in their childhood) can become a non-member, or that they will associate with former members who become non-members for any reason at all.
This all seems like it's tin foil hat time. But so does the article's title. Why has the US government outsourced government business to private corporations? Since when is it your employer's business what you do between knock off time and clock on time? The whole thing is more absurd than any unrealistic situation I can come up with.
(Score: 2) by demonlapin on Thursday July 03 2014, @02:55AM
Housing is subject to many, many more antidiscrimination laws than health insurance the company pays for on its own dime. If the company chose to become a landlord, they would be subject to much greater scrutiny. It's perfectly legal for churches not to hire atheists in doctrinary positions; it's completely illegal for them to refuse to lease church-owned apartments to atheists.
(Score: 2) by zsau on Thursday July 03 2014, @09:28AM
Under my scenario, they weren't leasing church owned apartments; the rent you paid on whatever place you lived in (including nominal rent in the case of a home you owned) was part of the package. That's why it was "your fair market rent" as opposed to "free housing in one of our places".
But maybe even that's illegal, and if you want to assert that I won't press the point. Like I said, what I said doesn't sound believable, but neither does this article.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Monday June 30 2014, @09:52PM
"No material attachments" works both ways, the company policy cannot prevent employees stealing, pardon, bringing home, all the cash, servers, furniture...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @09:12PM
What do you order at the Zen Buddhist hot dog stand?
Why don't you get money back if you overpay at the Zen Buddhist hot dog stand?
(Score: 3, Funny) by VLM on Monday June 30 2014, @09:55PM
That's pretty boring, with all due respect.
Try for an exemption of the fraction of your corporate income tax going toward the DoD because of pacifistic religious belief. Now that would be epic, one way or the other.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by danmars on Monday June 30 2014, @09:50PM
I hadn't really paid attention to this case previously. It appears these companies were going for a middle ground, where they would cover some forms of contraception (like hormonal birth control) but not those that operate post-conception (like the morning-after pill). I can understand their point of view; it's the same reason I would never work for the NSA.
This really illustrates why employers should not be paying for health insurance and choosing health plans. Their interests and beliefs may not align with those of the covered employee. Employers should not be in the business of providing health insurance to employees - then you avoid all this trouble.
(Score: 5, Informative) by compro01 on Monday June 30 2014, @10:09PM
The morning-after pill doesn't operate post-conception, despite what Hobby Lobby claims. It functions by preventing ovulation. Their claims that it is an abortificant are fiction.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @10:42PM
> The morning-after pill doesn't operate post-conception, despite what Hobby Lobby claims.
> It functions by preventing ovulation. Their claims that it is an abortificant are fiction.
While it is true that it does function by preventing ovulation it can also function by preventing implantation, although that is much less well established.
At least that is according to the Mayo Clinic's website:
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 02 2014, @08:33PM
In which case, Plan B One-Step and Next Choice should be ethical for people who believe that a fertilized embryo is sacred. They prevent fertilization via two methods but do nothing to hinder a fertilized embryo.
1702845791×2
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Tuesday July 01 2014, @10:35AM
Considering it's possible to get pregnant from having sex after ovulation (for up to a day), either the morning-after-pill would be very ineffective in such a situation, or what you say is untrue.
(Score: 2) by compro01 on Wednesday July 02 2014, @02:55AM
Correct, it wouldn't be of any use in that situation.
(Score: 1) by danmars on Tuesday July 01 2014, @06:13PM
My mistake - I was basing my comment on reading the article, and did not research the factual basis of the claims myself. Wikipedia seems to agree with you.
(Score: 1) by jcross on Monday June 30 2014, @10:01PM
I'm pretty sure SCOTUS can't make this happen, but it would make sense if companies that didn't cover contraception were required to provide maternity coverage instead.
(Score: 2) by demonlapin on Monday June 30 2014, @10:53PM
(Score: 1) by jcross on Tuesday July 01 2014, @01:00AM
Good to know. Last time I looked into insurance rates was getting individual coverage before the ACA. If I remember right it was about $300 per month on top of the $120-ish premium to get maternity coverage. Nice to hear it's becoming a standard thing. Of course coverage for hospital expenses and so on does not necessarily mean a company is actually family-friendly; one would hope they have a generous paid maternity/paternity leave as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @11:11PM
Do you have an example where the company does not?
(Score: 3, Informative) by e_armadillo on Monday June 30 2014, @10:06PM
People need to calm down and read the article. OP is misleading. These companies are NOT denying contraceptive coverage as a category. They object to specific contraceptive methods, and refuse to pay for those specific types of contraceptives.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 2) by compro01 on Monday June 30 2014, @10:17PM
Just wait and see what happens now that camel's nose is in the tent.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @10:29PM
The real issue is that they've become exempt from Federal law based on the owners' religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @10:53PM
> The real issue is that they've become exempt from Federal law based on the owners' religion.
This. 100x this.
And, as is so often the case, Scalia proves himself a hypocrite [publiceye.org] by splitting hairs that no one else can see.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 02 2014, @08:50PM
Oh, that's a good find!
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:49AM
we don't need to calm down, we need pitchforks and fires. the supremes are out of control and this is in insult to all thinking people.
they are supporting and preferring a religion. growing up in the US many decades ago, this was supposed to be WRONG WRONG WRONG.
how the US has drifted from its roots. dammit! the united states of jesusland is a virtual reality in this so-called modern era we are living in.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by gawdonblue on Monday June 30 2014, @10:15PM
If employers can decide not to provide cover on religious belief then what about blood transfusions? Would save your life but now not covered if employed by a Jehovahs Witness. Weird.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Monday June 30 2014, @10:41PM
Scary is more like it.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Monday June 30 2014, @10:51PM
Be less of a lazy slacker so you can get a job somewhere else. Not being able to get that job only a problem for the stupid and lazy.
(with fewer than 1% exceptions even)
(Score: 1) by lonestar on Monday June 30 2014, @11:05PM
Exactly right.
And I failed to catch the part where "Not Paying for [x]" == "Denial of right to [x]"
What did I miss?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @09:21AM
I can't pretend to understand the American health system - because it is weird - but from what I understand refusal to pay is effectively denial of right to because of the outrageous costs involved. Please correct if this is wrong.
(Score: 1) by lonestar on Friday July 04 2014, @03:38PM
Thoroughly addressing the ridiculous costs would involve a lot of time, but the short answer is that it depends on the denial.
As an aside, b/c I can't accept the premise - my belief is that insurance companies & corporations, much like the government, can neither confer nor deny you any of your RIGHTS.
If your insurance company denied you a cancer treatment, then yes, it would effectively be a denial of service because very few people could pay that out of pocket. Not to mention the fact that cancer isn't part of a linear and direct consequence of behavior like pregnancy is.
But the cost of post-conception birth control isn't comparable to the cost of chemotherapy. If you can afford a car and a cell phone, you can afford the morning-after pill.
My understanding is that Hobby Lobby does cover standard forms of contraception. It's the "Post-Fertlization" (my term) methods that they don't cover.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @11:45PM
> Be less of a lazy slacker so you can get a job somewhere else. Not being able to get that job only a problem for the stupid and lazy.
Could you have any less empathy? This randian uberman shit is so pathetic.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday July 01 2014, @03:56AM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:51AM
yeah, jobs are all over the place. there is no outsourcing, no h1b competition and no race to the bottom. companies are happy to pay a living wage and treat employees with respect.
I like your backwards land MUCH better than our current reality. sign me up!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 30 2014, @11:49PM
Those of you that want freedom FROM religion better speak up now, while you still can. Next this group of corporations will be forcing your kids to pray in school, and all that other stupid nonsense. I have the perfect counter for that though; just say that all the kids have to pray to Allah, and then they will drop the subject.
Seriously, people that do not want to have religion shoved down your throat everywhere had better start your own protests. You are under attack whether you realize it, or not. When you see a group of these "life" protesters gathering, start your own protest about how all religion is bunk. This should be fun now that you can get in their faces, thanks to the same idiotic court decisions.
The Supreme Court is dragging the U.S. back to the 1800's as fast as they can.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @12:41AM
Sadly, that kind of thing makes them double-down even harder. These people will not give up until the US is a Christian theocracy. Even pointing out how they're only setting precedents to allow other religions to do exactly what they want to be able to do with theirs only makes them push even harder, creating ways to specifically exclude every religion except theirs, despite being unconstitutional and against everything that the US stands for.
(Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:32PM
and this is why I school my children in Pastafarianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarianism [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by romanr on Tuesday July 01 2014, @12:33AM
There is serious lack of info in the summary. I don't complain, I hope we'll get better in the future. Good summary can be found on slashdot [slashdot.org] (they are still alive). Important things from summary: It only applies to closely held companies (maximum of 5 people hold 50% and more of the company). However majority of companies are "closely held".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @01:02AM
> There is serious lack of info in the summary.
That's why it is a summary with a link to an article that addresses all of your issues.
Jesus h christ, I never thought I'd see someone complain that they themselves didn't RTFA.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday July 01 2014, @09:55AM
It's a legitimate gripe. Why have a summary in the first place? Just dump the links, if that's the only thing that matters. But if you're going to have a summary, at least have a useful one.
(Score: 1) by Bob The Cowboy on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:50PM
My apologies. I wrote a few different summaries, but most of them came out as frustrated personal opinion touting which drives me crazy when I read it in other people's summaries. Eventually I had to leave for work, so I left it short and direct (and IMO not as misleading as some have said). That said, criticism accepted. I'll try harder next time.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday July 01 2014, @06:10AM
The basic issue decided is this: You, as an individual, have certain rights: freedom of expression, religious freedom, etc.. If you have a privately held company, you still have the same rights even when acting through your company. The fact that you decided to make your company a corporation instead of a proprietorship is irrelevant.
That's it, that's all that the decision really says.
However, there's a second issue that lots of people seem to miss in all this: Insurance should never pay regular, predictable expenses. That's like expecting your homeowner's or renter's insurance to pay your electric bill. Sure, they'll be happy to do it, but they will put their overhead charges on top and add the cost to your bill. So your costs are higher than if you just paid those costs directly. For this reason alone, expecting insurance to cover contraception costs is idiotic. Insurance is supposed to cover catastrophic, unexpected expenses, nothing more.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday July 01 2014, @09:53AM
Here's a couple more points to consider. Anyone who can't be bothered to purchase cheap birth control and use it, isn't likely to obtain and use free birth control via an insurance provider. The cost is still there, just in the form of hassle rather than money. I don't see the alleged target of this benefit actually being willing or competent enough to jump the new obstacles any more than they were to jump the old one.
Then there's the next point. This could have been far more effectively covered with a free birth control program, giving condoms and other birth control devices to the people who had the most trouble with it. The peculiar circumstances of the Obamacare approach, where birth control is not only covered by insurance, but has no deductible, indicates to me that someone intended this not just to provide free birth control, but free, expensive birth control to whomever gets their birth control devices and drugs approved for insurance coverage. We should be suspicious of the birth control providers who benefit handsomely from this program. I think this program was fundamentally a rent seeking gift.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 02 2014, @08:57PM
I can see two exceptions to that. The first is that accident of birth can lead to catastrophic and unexpected expenses, such as an ongoing prescription of sterol hormones not related to birth control. The second is that working conditions may lead to deteriorating health, such as myopia. If ongoing healthcare is to be paid via insurance then the purpose of this insurance is overloaded. But should these ongoing conditions be paid by the employee, the employer or the state?
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday July 01 2014, @09:58AM
If you have a problem with this Supreme Court case, then stack the court so that it starts making more unconstitutional 5-4 decisions. Or I suppose you could pass a constitutional amendment that reverses the religious protection clause of the First Amendment. But that seems like work.
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Wednesday July 02 2014, @04:01PM
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday July 03 2014, @01:12AM
Employees don't get to do as they please with health benefits. And the law in question actively thwarts that too. For example, I'd rather have insurance without birth control purchases built in. Where's my choice?
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Tuesday July 01 2014, @10:57AM
To me it seems about as weird as expecting my employers to pay for my dental floss, toothbrush and toothpaste, etc - these help prevent medical conditions too! And tooth decay and gum problems are more likely to be considered negative medical conditions than positive medical conditions compared to pregnancy.
Would be less weird for the State to pay for contraception or toothbrushes (maybe as part of some social programme) than for an employer to do so.
If you want to be worthy of the rights to have or not have babies, perhaps you should start accepting more of the responsibilities. If you can't even take full responsibility for contraception in a "developed country" perhaps you should have yourself "spayed" for the benefit of future generations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @12:53PM
If we could have universal healthcare like the rest of the civilized world, we wouldn't have to deal with any of this nonsense, but the US is a country of morons so stupid they think "insurance" not only counts as healthcare, but is a good way to go about it!
(Score: 1) by Meepy on Tuesday July 01 2014, @01:33PM
One thing you might not know is that in the US hardly any basic health insurance covers "tooth decay and gum problems". For any dental work you're on your own, unless you're lucky and your company buys you a pricey plan, and it's incredibly expensive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @06:05PM
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 02 2014, @09:00PM
There is an argument that tampons should be included in socialized healthcare. So maybe it isn't so crazy for employers to pay for toothbrushes.
1702845791×2
(Score: 1) by WanderCat on Tuesday July 01 2014, @02:35PM
Once again, all of the drama around the implementation of the ACA is directly rooted in employer involvement. Why do we insist that the employer remain in the middle of the exchange, when they add no value to add to the result?
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:31PM
The employer does add value, in that it has leverage over the insurance company for pricing. Private individuals approaching, say, Blue Cross/Blue Shield could not get the same coverage or rates as they would receive through an employer-sponsored plan with the same insurance company. The insurers are as bad as cell phone companies (or worse!), and would laugh at me if I threatened to take my business elsewhere as an individual. When a company with 50k+ employees makes the same threat it is a large revenue stream being threatened, and the insurance company makes concessions.
tl;dr version - insurance companies are run by a bunch of jerks who will screw you over unless you are powerful enough to keep them in line. An individual doesn't have that kind of power; major companies do. That's the value employers bring to the situation, and why we don't self-insure in America.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 02 2014, @09:44PM
On that basis, employers should be negotiating car insurance for their employees.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Thursday July 03 2014, @03:00PM
You've got a good point; that would be a logical extension of the same exercise.
The difference between health insurance and car insurance is that employee health directly relates to being fit-to-work, where car insurance does not. If the employee can't pay for his car repairs he can get a ride with a co-worker or take a bus. If they can't pay for critical health care they may become permanently disabled or (worst case) die; all of the training investment made in that employee is then lost.
This is a pretty cold calculation on the part of the employer. Large farms that hire migrant workers (even assuming that the workers are properly documented citizens) don't bother providing insurance benefits to their employees, as migrant workers are replaceable - unskilled labor is like that. Skilled labor environments (most offices with college degree requirements for their employees, for example) are more likely to provide health insurance negotiation for their employees as a way to maintain their workforce. Offices I've worked in have been up front about the fact that new employee training runs between $100-200k per new hire, and that they are very motivated to keep retention high to reduce that cost.
Since car insurance isn't really seen as having value for improving retention, American companies don't offer it the same kind of support. Welcome to Corporate America.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01 2014, @04:24PM
it's odd that one's healthcare is tied to their company. Coming from Canada, and having lived abroad, I find this practice absurd. Sadly, as someone that currently lives in California, it was one factor when I chose what company to work at.
I hope this trend is reversed, and we move to a single payer healthcare system. Otherwise costs will continue to spiral out of control, regardless of healthcare mandates.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 26 2014, @01:25AM
Someone who does not understand the issue will focus on the fact that I have no way of knowing if the name and employer they give me to give to 4chan is really their own legitimate info.