Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
You see it as the government restricting Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs. I see it as Hobby Lobby imposing their religious beliefs on their employees.
Ahhh . . . the "I see it" . . . "you see it" argument. That'll get us . . . nowhere. That's why a Constitution and its form of government was created. So that we could see it differently but still cooperate as a society/country. As Jim says, how you see it does not answer his question to you regarding the Constitution. Of course, from what I gather by all the various posts on the political thread site, "liberals" or "progressives" either don't particularly care about the Constitution, or claim to not understand it and leave it up to various parts of the Federal Government to tell them what the Constitution "means." And, besides, as Spence would say, that's all academic. What Uncle Sam (Uncle Same?) says is what is, and must be obeyed. Although it can be bitched about if "conservatives" are in charge.
Reproductive issues should be covered by healthcare, IMHO. Period. I also see it as HIGHLY hypocritical that they covered it before the ACA, but don't cover it now, by splitting hairs with 'aborticant's? was the term.
Why, other than your opinion, should contraceptives be covered and not other "reproductive issues"? Just about everything we do affects our "reproductive" health. Including far more expensive things such as those in my post above which included a "plan" to cover it all.
I truly believe, they disagree with the law politically, and are using this as an excuse. Maybe it is financially motivated, as I think there are a large number of companies looking for excuses to cut benefits and doing so under the guise of the the ACA.
Companies only provide "benefits" if it benefits them to so provide. There is a rather fixed amount they are willing or able to expend on labor in order to competitively achieve their goals. That amount does not differ whether it is in benefits or cash. Benefits are an attractive method of compensation both to the employer and employee if they can be relieved of payroll taxes. There is no reason for a company to "cut benefits" if they have to be replaced with tax loaded compensation. The overall compensation, with or without benefits, is the total package the employee and employer agree on. If the overall compensation makes the company uncompetitive it must be adjusted or all, including the employees, lose their job. If the ACA adds to the fiscal burden of companies, it would be reasonable for them to resist it. If it doesn't, there is no advantage for them to resist it or "cut benefits."
I still commend them for paying above minimum wage.
|
Threaded Mode