Author Topic: OK, honest HobbyLobby question  (Read 1716 times)

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87066
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
OK, honest HobbyLobby question
« on: July 11, 2014, 03:02:51 am »
So, the ACA was put in place to make sure that people could get affordable insurance, regardless.

Many employers offer insurance as a benefit that a worker's pay is taken off the top t

The ACA says that if an employer wants to do this, they must comply with a certain amount of rules.

If the employer doesn't want to offer this, then they can stop offering health insurance as a benefit. The employee will get the money taken off the top and get their own insurance.

If I have the above correct, then the "least obstructive option" to those who don't like the ACA mandate is to not offer the benefit.

And if the above is true, WHY HAS NO ONE, EVEN THE PROGRESSIVES, TALKED ABOUTH THIS? IT WASN'T EVEN MENTIONED IN THE SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS.


Someone explain who knows more that me.  Without the conspiracy, please.

Q. G. Pennyworth

  • Slimy Thing Who
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 82702
  • QUEEN BITCH OF FLYERS
    • View Profile
Re: OK, honest HobbyLobby question
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2014, 04:44:11 am »
This is an excellent point. Is there something in the ACA requiring businesses of a certain size to cover people?
Overheating Pheremone Pustule of Last Saturday's Jiggle Fun| _xgeWireToEvent: Unknown extension 131, this should never happen.

Don't fucking judge me, I've got tentacles for a face.

Durivan

  • Known
  • *
  • Posts: 309
    • View Profile
Re: OK, honest HobbyLobby question
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2014, 08:42:39 am »
I think the rule is that businesses over a certain size must pay a fine if they don't offer health insurance.

Still doesn't change anything, Hobby Lobby no longer offering insurance at all is the easiest way out of this without the courts changing laws.
Of course that had no chance of happening.  There is no conspiracy here, it is all out in the open to be seen if you look hard enough.

The Republicans want to tear down the ACA, and since they failed to do it all at once, they are now trying to do it a piece at a time.  This case had little to do with how the Hobby Lobby owners actually feel about contraception coverage for their employees, this is all about going after Obama, they (the Republicans) are obsessed.

Obama and the Democrats who blindly follow him want to preserve the ACA as they envisioned it.  Obama doesn't want companies dropping their health insurance plans, he thinks that will reflect poorly on his plan.  Obama personally couldn't care any less if employees get contraceptive coverage or not, he only wants to defend his "legacy".

Roly Poly Oly-Garch

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 15811
  • "I DARE YOU"
    • View Profile
Re: OK, honest HobbyLobby question
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2014, 02:43:34 pm »
So, the ACA was put in place to make sure that people could get affordable insurance, regardless.

Many employers offer insurance as a benefit that a worker's pay is taken off the top t

The ACA says that if an employer wants to do this, they must comply with a certain amount of rules.

If the employer doesn't want to offer this, then they can stop offering health insurance as a benefit. The employee will get the money taken off the top and get their own insurance.

If I have the above correct, then the "least obstructive option" to those who don't like the ACA mandate is to not offer the benefit.

And if the above is true, WHY HAS NO ONE, EVEN THE PROGRESSIVES, TALKED ABOUTH THIS? IT WASN'T EVEN MENTIONED IN THE SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS.


Someone explain who knows more that me.  Without the conspiracy, please.

Are you talking about the "least restrictive means" test? That test only applies to the government's actions. It only questions whether the government could achieve the same interest through a less restrictive means, not whether there is some alternative action that could be taken by the plaintiff. The assumption being that if the government is going to burden a right, it has the burden of proving why it should be allowed to.
Back to the fecal matter in the pool

Roly Poly Oly-Garch

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 15811
  • "I DARE YOU"
    • View Profile
Re: OK, honest HobbyLobby question
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2014, 03:00:21 pm »
This is an excellent point. Is there something in the ACA requiring businesses of a certain size to cover people?

Yeah. Any business over 50 employees will eventually be required to either pay a substantial tax penalty, or provide coverage.
Back to the fecal matter in the pool

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87066
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: OK, honest HobbyLobby question
« Reply #5 on: July 11, 2014, 03:21:42 pm »
I should do some research before making sleep-deprived posts.

It's a fairly substantial penalty, as well.  Something like $2000 anually times the number of employees minus 30, and grows each year.

http://kff.org/infographic/employer-responsibility-under-the-affordable-care-act/

Hobby Lobby has about 21000 employees, -30 x2000 = $41,940,000 a year.

Never mind.

Luna

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 104584
    • View Profile
Re: OK, honest HobbyLobby question
« Reply #6 on: July 11, 2014, 04:39:39 pm »
I should do some research before making sleep-deprived posts.

It's a fairly substantial penalty, as well.  Something like $2000 anually times the number of employees minus 30, and grows each year.

http://kff.org/infographic/employer-responsibility-under-the-affordable-care-act/

Hobby Lobby has about 21000 employees, -30 x2000 = $41,940,000 a year.

Never mind.

Substantial, yes...  However, I will point out that medical coverage that meets the regulations likely costs more than $2000/year per employee. That's what, less than forty bucks a week a head?  Yeah... considerably less than the cost of actually covering their employees.
Death-dealing hormone freak of deliciousness
Pagan-Stomping Valkyrie of the Interbutts™
Rampaging Slayer of Shit-Fountain Habitues

"My father says that almost the whole world is asleep. Everybody you know, everybody you see, everybody you talk to. He says that only a few people are awake, and they live in a state of constant, total amazement."

If Luna was a furry, she'd sex humans and scream "BEASTIALITY!" at the top of her lungs at inopportune times.

I like the Luna one. She is a good one.

Quote
"Stop talking to yourself.  You don't like you any better than anyone else who knows you."

Durivan

  • Known
  • *
  • Posts: 309
    • View Profile
Re: OK, honest HobbyLobby question
« Reply #7 on: July 11, 2014, 11:13:39 pm »
So, the ACA was put in place to make sure that people could get affordable insurance, regardless.

Many employers offer insurance as a benefit that a worker's pay is taken off the top t

The ACA says that if an employer wants to do this, they must comply with a certain amount of rules.

If the employer doesn't want to offer this, then they can stop offering health insurance as a benefit. The employee will get the money taken off the top and get their own insurance.

If I have the above correct, then the "least obstructive option" to those who don't like the ACA mandate is to not offer the benefit.

And if the above is true, WHY HAS NO ONE, EVEN THE PROGRESSIVES, TALKED ABOUTH THIS? IT WASN'T EVEN MENTIONED IN THE SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS.


Someone explain who knows more that me.  Without the conspiracy, please.

Are you talking about the "least restrictive means" test? That test only applies to the government's actions. It only questions whether the government could achieve the same interest through a less restrictive means, not whether there is some alternative action that could be taken by the plaintiff. The assumption being that if the government is going to burden a right, it has the burden of proving why it should be allowed to.

That wasn't what I was referring to at all.

The SC decision has several changes that did not previously exist in law.  The decision itself is a real mess.

#1) That some for profit business that meet certain conditions, can have and practice a religion on its own.

#2) That through this, the for profit business can discriminate against its employees, even if they don't share the same beliefs.

#3) That the corporations opinion on facts, and not the actual truth of the facts themselves is what matters.

#4) That only some religious beliefs qualify for this, while others do not.



Roly Poly Oly-Garch

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 15811
  • "I DARE YOU"
    • View Profile
Re: OK, honest HobbyLobby question
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2014, 01:35:56 am »
So, the ACA was put in place to make sure that people could get affordable insurance, regardless.

Many employers offer insurance as a benefit that a worker's pay is taken off the top t

The ACA says that if an employer wants to do this, they must comply with a certain amount of rules.

If the employer doesn't want to offer this, then they can stop offering health insurance as a benefit. The employee will get the money taken off the top and get their own insurance.

If I have the above correct, then the "least obstructive option" to those who don't like the ACA mandate is to not offer the benefit.

And if the above is true, WHY HAS NO ONE, EVEN THE PROGRESSIVES, TALKED ABOUTH THIS? IT WASN'T EVEN MENTIONED IN THE SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS.


Someone explain who knows more that me.  Without the conspiracy, please.

Are you talking about the "least restrictive means" test? That test only applies to the government's actions. It only questions whether the government could achieve the same interest through a less restrictive means, not whether there is some alternative action that could be taken by the plaintiff. The assumption being that if the government is going to burden a right, it has the burden of proving why it should be allowed to.

That wasn't what I was referring to at all.

The SC decision has several changes that did not previously exist in law.  The decision itself is a real mess.

#1) That some for profit business that meet certain conditions, can have and practice a religion on its own.

#2) That through this, the for profit business can discriminate against its employees, even if they don't share the same beliefs.

#3) That the corporations opinion on facts, and not the actual truth of the facts themselves is what matters.

#4) That only some religious beliefs qualify for this, while others do not.

Color me confused. Are you the LMNO-PhD?

Also, I was trying to clarify a specific point, not...whatever this may be...
Back to the fecal matter in the pool

LMNO

  • Lubricated and Rabid Lungfish of Impending Sexdoom™
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 87066
  • Internet Fuckweasel of Haunted Pork Dimensions.
    • View Profile
    • Earfatigue Productions: When it has to sound like you give a shit.
Re: OK, honest HobbyLobby question
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2014, 03:09:30 pm »
Nope, they ain't me. And yeah, I take your point. I pretty much figured out the answer the next day, after some sleep and some google-fu.

Roly Poly Oly-Garch

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 15811
  • "I DARE YOU"
    • View Profile
Re: OK, honest HobbyLobby question
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2014, 07:20:13 pm »
Heh. I figured. There seems to be a bunch of people that ain't people, on the PD just now. Shrug. It's got me feeling salty. Seems like a good time to catch up on My Girl Friday and Necronomicoin.
Back to the fecal matter in the pool