| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Prof. Michael McConnell (Stanford) on the Hobby Lobby arguments | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 29 2014, 12:19 PM (291 Views) | |
| Berton | Mar 29 2014, 12:19 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Prof. Michael McConnell (Stanford) on the Hobby Lobby arguments Cutting through the politicized hype about the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga case (“Corporations have no rights!” “War on Women!”) the Justices during oral argument focused on four serious legal questions, which deserve a serious answer: (1) Could Hobby Lobby avoid a substantial burden on its religious exercise by dropping health insurance and paying fines of $2,000 per employee? (2) Does the government have a compelling interest in protecting the statutory rights of Hobby Lobby’s employees? (3) Would a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby give rise to a slippery slope of exemptions from vaccines, minimum wage laws, anti-discrimination laws, and the like? (4) Has the government satisfied the least restrictive means test? I think the answer to all four questions is “no.” I offer brief thoughts on each below. 1. Can Hobby Lobby avoid a substantial burden by dropping insurance? Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kennedy asked several questions about whether Hobby Lobby could avoid a substantial burden on its religious exercise by dropping insurance altogether and paying an annual “tax” of $2,000 per employee. Tr. 23-29. Some have suggested, based on admittedly “speculative” calculations, that this option would actually save Hobby Lobby money, because health insurance typically costs more than $2,000 per employee. This argument—which the government never raised below and which no lower court has addressed—is wrong both in principle and on the facts...... LINK It is interesting to read what a expert has to say compared to the speculation offered by some on the board. |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Mar 29 2014, 08:47 PM Post #2 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Another appeal to authority logical fallacy. |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Mar 29 2014, 10:04 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, a better explanation as apposed to the speculation you offered. "First, the Greens (owners of Hobby Lobby) have alleged that their religious beliefs include a belief in treating employees well, a belief they practice by, among other things, offering quality health care to their employees. (Their religious beliefs are also why they start employees at nearly double the minimum wage, reduce operating hours to promote family time, and provide other benefits.) The government has never contested the sincerity of those beliefs. And that should end the argument. The government is forcing the Greens to cover contraception or drop insurance altogether, both of which would burden their religious exercise." |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Mar 29 2014, 10:25 PM Post #4 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Contrary to the speculation by some on this board, . it does appear that the use of flex dollars to provide Health insurance under the ACA remains a viable option for employers. Affordable Care Act Changes for Flexible Spending Accounts. |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Mar 29 2014, 10:34 PM Post #5 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
From your link: "Only individuals eligible for employer-provided major medical coverage can be offered the health FSA. Employers with health FSAs must have an underlying ACA-compliant group health insurance plan." Contrary to the speculation by some on this board, it does appear that the use of flex dollars to provide Health Insurance under Obama care will cost Hobby Lobby much more than continuing to pay for a insurance plan for their employees. "Even apart from religious convictions, the right of an employer to provide health insurance coverage for its employees is a valuable right under the law. If employers were better off dropping insurance coverage and paying the “tax,” we would expect many large employers to do so. That has not happened—which confirms the common-sense conclusion that dropping insurance coverage is bad for employees and bad for business. In any event, the speculation that Hobby Lobby could save money by dropping its employees’ health insurance plan, paying the tax, and making it up to them in increased salary disregards three important facts: (1) employer-provided health insurance is tax-exempt to the employee, but the compensatory increase in salary would not be; (2) the provision of insurance is tax-deductible to the employer, but payment of the tax is not; and (3) employer-based group coverage is cheaper and usually better than individual plans on the exchanges. It is almost certainly cheaper for Hobby Lobby to provide health insurance than to pay for its employees to purchase equivalent coverage on the exchanges." Edited by Berton, Mar 29 2014, 10:50 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Mar 29 2014, 11:02 PM Post #6 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well, that was a FINE job of cherry picking from the link I provided. |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Mar 29 2014, 11:06 PM Post #7 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yesterday, I checked with my former full time employer and they have a legal interpretation from their law firm that they can, and will, continue their flex benefits program without fines concerning the ACA. |
![]() |
|
| Pat | Mar 29 2014, 11:22 PM Post #8 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
In my opinion, it boils down to this one quote from the article. As government continues it's invasion on our personal freedom and right to live unmolested, more and more thorny issues arise. The ACA which originally was an argument that we have 50,000,000 without basic health insurance won the day in congress and the law was passed. But then, HHS took it one step further and added this mandate, a mandate that was not in the bill. More creeping rights bestowed, more disruption of constitutional rights, and yes, somebody has to pay for it. If the court rules against the government then guess who gets the bill. The taxpayer. I just don't see where it is the business of the government to tell anybody or demand of anybody that they practice birth control or must pay for contraception for others. This is not a life threatening issue which was the original argument for the ACA, it's gravy. I'm not religious but I also don't believe the government has any business forcing a religious person to go against their sacredly held beliefs. And what is amazing about all of this, since this new bestowed right has not been codified in the law but is rather something the HHS came up with, another administration could end the right bestowed, and throw this further into kilter. People need to become re-acquainted with personal responsibility, if you want to have sex and fear pregnancy, then go buy some birth control or have your sex partner do so. Quit making this the responsibility of someone who objects and has no business in your bedroom to begin with. quote--"Ultimately, the government’s problem here is that it has essentially reduced its own compelling interest to a funding question: Who should pay for the contraceptive coverage the government has decided people should have? Almost by definition, where the government’s claimed interest is merely a question of who should fund something, there will always be less restrictive alternatives, because the government can always choose to fund its own priorities (which it of course does with a great many things that even the government would not claim to be compelling interests)." |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Mar 30 2014, 05:59 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am glad for them, however, we were talking about the situation Hobby Lobby is in. |
![]() |
|
| colo_crawdad | Mar 30 2014, 07:24 AM Post #10 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Flex pay is an option available to Hobby Lobby. Pat essentially suggested that several posts back. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register Now |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




10:18 PM Jul 11
