Octopus Overlords

It doesn't matter. If you seek profit, you are a for-profit and you have to play by all of the rules.

Until yesterday.

RunningMn9 wrote:Single payer isn't the only option. I would be satisfied if we all had access to health insurance exchanges where insurance companies are forced to compete for our business.

Why? How is that more efficient than just making healthcare universal and letting the fed foot the bill? Seems a lot easier as you then don't have to worry about who paid and who didn't and which plan they have, what it covers etc. Save millions of hours just in not having to fill out and verify all the insurance bullshit.

RunningMn9 wrote:It doesn't matter. If you seek profit, you are a for-profit and you have to play by all of the rules.

Until yesterday.

Why is profit the test for who has to follow the rules and who doesn't? Non-profits are one of the biggest scams we have ever bought into to. Most of them are making tons of profit for cronies, founders, and the extremely well compensated stooges who run them by proxy. It is very common for a wealthy business owner to fund a non-profit to do what dirty work advances the profits of their for profit business but does so under the veil of being non-profit directly. When you get thing like a non-profit setup to convince people to drink more milk, make no mistake there is a profit motive behind those who set it up.

Rip wrote:Why? How is that more efficient than just making healthcare universal and letting the fed foot the bill?

Because the problems with the current system have more to do with the way the health insurance industry is structured specifically to not be competitive.

There are some things where single payer may make more sense (i.e. acute emergency care). At this point in time, I still believe that there is a role for private insurance to deal with the things that single payer isn't particularly good for (i.e. laser eye surgery). Some aspects of healthcare are better served by unrestrained capitalism. Others are better served by single payer socialism.

I see no reason to force myself into choosing one or the other, just because.

Rip wrote:Well you will have to wait.....forever because it won't happen. Now that the can has been opened it is pretty much impossible to just remove the mandate.

Well as we see, the mandate applies until SCOTUS decides that it doesn't. I don't agree that it's impossible. The door has already been pried open a crack.

I'm on vacation and haven't read the full opinion, but there are non-profit forms of corporations for religious organizations and limited purpose entities. And I expect that's the fundamental misunderstanding by either the majority opinion or the reporting.

The point of a corporation is to have an entity legally separate from the owners. For liability purposes or many other legitimate personal or business reasons. It would be different reasoning if Hobby Lobby was "incorporated to follow Christian principles in all of its business dealings." But I an 99% certain it wasn't -- having set up many small closely held businesses for clients, the standard is "to conduct business for all lawful purposes." That's not the analysis cited in the news -- the Courts says the corporation COULD have been so set up instead of saying it WAS. That's a big difference in business law, but the litigators/constitutional originalists probably missed it. Maybe not, and the news is doing a terrible job understanding it.

To base a decision on what the owners of a business believe is fundamentally wrong as a matter of corporate law. Owners even of a closely held business can change. Chances are that the Green family sells or goes out of business rather than staying in the next generation of the family as a "closely held" business.

It's unprecedented, and not just on questionable legal grounds but factually near-sighted.

BREAKING NEWS

Citing the newly-established precedent of corporate-religious exemption, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in favor of JCPenney, upholding the company's right to sacrifice pure-hearted employees in order to assuage the Dread Lord Cthulhu, Bringer of Madness.

Rip wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:It doesn't matter. If you seek profit, you are a for-profit and you have to play by all of the rules.

Until yesterday.

Why is profit the test for who has to follow the rules and who doesn't? Non-profits are one of the biggest scams we have ever bought into to. Most of them are making tons of profit for cronies, founders, and the extremely well compensated stooges who run them by proxy. It is very common for a wealthy business owner to fund a non-profit to do what dirty work advances the profits of their for profit business but does so under the veil of being non-profit directly. When you get thing like a non-profit setup to convince people to drink more milk, make no mistake there is a profit motive behind those who set it up.

No, "most" of them are not set up for the sole purpose of twisting opinion towards a profit motive for a shadowy 1%er. WTF is wrong with you?

Random tidbit I found interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to this discussion, since "closely held corporation" was mentioned, but not defined. Obviously I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on the internet, but according to the Cornell legal dictionary, a closely held corporation is: "A small, privately held corporation with only a few shareholders, usually family members or other close associates."

However in this case for some reason, "closely held" only requires that there are 5 or fewer shareholders that own more than 50% of the company, which includes the largest private company in the world, with no small amount of employees:

"The small grain storage company founded by W.W. Cargill in 1865 has grown to become the world’s largest private company, with nearly $120 billion in revenues and 130,000 employees in 63 countries. The extended (and secretive) Cargill family still owns 88% of the agribusiness giant."

Rip wrote:It could easily be solved by ending the government mandated employer-medical care tie in. My choice would have been to not have national healthcare in the first place, but if we must have it single payer is the only way that makes sense. It is inevitable that we end up there so when that happens all of this no longer matters.

The alternative, as I'm sure my non-science denying friend would agree, is to not let belief trump scientific evidence. As stated in the article linked previously on this thread, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists filed a friend-of-the-court brief stating that

Emergency contraception will not disrupt an established pregnancy. Women often are exposed to exogenous hormones in early pregnancy without adverse outcome. Some women undergoing assisted reproductive technology procedures to achieve pregnancy are routinely prescribed progesterone to support the pregnancy. It is also a common occurrence to interview patients in early pregnancy who were not aware that their missed pills had resulted in contraceptive failure and who thus had continued taking their pills.

Essentially, once that egg gets fertilized good luck getting it out with a pill.

And

Prevalent social myth holds that IUDs are abortifacients. Even U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent from the majority opinion in Webster v Reproductive Health Services, subscribed to this belief. Scientists, including developers of IUDs, have believed it. The key element underlying this myth is that IUDs act only at the uterine level, either to prevent implantation or to destroy developing embryos in the uterus before implantation. Today, however, the weight of scientific evidence indicates that IUDs act as contraceptives. They prevent fertilization, diminishing the number of sperm that reach the oviduct and incapacitating them.

Yet the Supreme Court decided to let belief trump scientific evidence. All those dead dudes arguing that they believed non-whites are inferior to white people are crying in their grave right now, wondering where this SCOTUS was when they were alive.

FWIW Rip, I don't think that all non-profits are allowed to decide which laws they have to follow. I think that is restricted to religious-based non-profits.

Carpet_pissr wrote:"The small grain storage company founded by W.W. Cargill in 1865 has grown to become the world’s largest private company, with nearly $120 billion in revenues and 130,000 employees in 63 countries. The extended (and secretive) Cargill family still owns 88% of the agribusiness giant."

Thanks for the 10 minute diversion at Wikipedia.

geezer wrote:

Rip wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:It doesn't matter. If you seek profit, you are a for-profit and you have to play by all of the rules.

Until yesterday.

Why is profit the test for who has to follow the rules and who doesn't? Non-profits are one of the biggest scams we have ever bought into to. Most of them are making tons of profit for cronies, founders, and the extremely well compensated stooges who run them by proxy. It is very common for a wealthy business owner to fund a non-profit to do what dirty work advances the profits of their for profit business but does so under the veil of being non-profit directly. When you get thing like a non-profit setup to convince people to drink more milk, make no mistake there is a profit motive behind those who set it up.

No, "most" of them are not set up for the sole purpose of twisting opinion towards a profit motive for a shadowy 1%er. WTF is wrong with you?

This works the same way that all climate scientists apparently do as well. Clearly they are all in it for the money, screw good science and Kant can suck one if he thinks anyone is going to do charity for its own sake.

In other news, a local CO company is using this decision to refuse to pay for any birth control method.

With any luck, one of the consequences of this will be employers getting out of the business of directly providing health insurance to employees.

RunningMn9 wrote:With any luck, one of the consequences of this will be employers getting out of the business of directly providing health insurance to employees.

It would be for the best, but doesn't the ACA require it, at least for larger employers?

coopasonic wrote:It would be for the best, but doesn't the ACA require it, at least for larger employers?

I'd have to look at it again, but I believe that large employers can satisfy the ACA requirement by subsidizing their employees to shop in the healthcare exchanges. If that were to happen, then it's a quick step to just convert that subsidy to salary, and we are free of employer-provided health insurance. Which allows us to shop for health insurance based on our own needs, rather than your employer shopping for health insurance based on their needs.

Employer Shared Responsibility... I read enough to confirm you are right, but stopped when my head started swimming.

RunningMn9 wrote:I'd have to look at it again, but I believe that large employers can satisfy the ACA requirement by subsidizing their employees to shop in the healthcare exchanges. If that were to happen, then it's a quick step to just convert that subsidy to salary, and we are free of employer-provided health insurance. Which allows us to shop for health insurance based on our own needs, rather than your employer shopping for health insurance based on their needs.

But then businesses will lose their tax breaks for providing health care to employees and subsequently need to raise the price of pizza and/or cut the work force as they'll no longer be able to afford to keep insurance free-employees. Or something. And I'm totally sure they would take the money they're no longer paying in premiums and give it to employees in the form of increased salary. Corporations would totally do that.

Smoove_B wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:I'd have to look at it again, but I believe that large employers can satisfy the ACA requirement by subsidizing their employees to shop in the healthcare exchanges. If that were to happen, then it's a quick step to just convert that subsidy to salary, and we are free of employer-provided health insurance. Which allows us to shop for health insurance based on our own needs, rather than your employer shopping for health insurance based on their needs.

But then businesses will lose their tax breaks for providing health care to employees and subsequently need to raise the price of pizza and/or cut the work force as they'll no longer be able to afford to keep insurance free-employees. Or something. And I'm totally sure they would take the money they're no longer paying in premiums and give it to employees in the form of increased salary. Corporations would totally do that.

They would love to, they really would. But to do so would fly in the face of their religious convictions.

Rip wrote:They would love to, they really would.

I actually believe they would genuinely love to as well. Dealing with health insurance for the employees has been a complete nightmare for them for the past 15 years or so. They take a one-time hit of moving a pile of money from one column to the other, and they are free of dealing with that noise.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Rip wrote:They would love to, they really would.

I actually believe they would genuinely love to as well. Dealing with health insurance for the employees has been a complete nightmare for them for the past 15 years or so. They take a one-time hit of moving a pile of money from one column to the other, and they are free of dealing with that noise.

Agree, I was referring to increasing the salaries to compensate.

Smoove_B wrote:And I'm totally sure they would take the money they're no longer paying in premiums and give it to employees in the form of increased salary. Corporations would totally do that.

I think they'd do it in heartbeat and you'd see people like me loving it and people with dependent spouses and one, two, three, four, five etc... children shitting Miatas. "Hey, the company is going to cut back on HR and we save $16,000 per year per employee. You all get $16,000 per year raises. Have fun!" Me? I'm loving life. I think there might be two other single people with no kids where I work whom would love this as well.

I think the inequity of company sponsored insurance would really cause havok for a lot people if they saw how much their benefits cost.

I think you just hurt defiant's feelings.

Rip wrote:Agree, I was referring to increasing the salaries to compensate.

Yes. I was replying to you, but my comment was for Smoove's benefit. If my employer is currently giving me $X in salary, and paying $Y for my health insurance - just start paying me ($X + $Y). Then they never have to deal with health insurance uncertainty again. That's a win for them.

The problem in the past was that buying insurance on your own was really expensive. At the moment, I'm not sure if the existence of the exchanges properly allows individuals to joint vast risk pools that allow phat cost savings. That would be necessary to get off the employer-provided insurance teet.

The emerging class of Sunni and Shia landowning tribal sheikhs vied for positions of power with wealthy and prestigious urban-based Sunni families and with ... army officers and bureaucrats. Because Iraq's newly established political institutions were the creation of a foreign power, and because the concept of democratic government had no precedent in Iraqi history, the politicians in Baghdad lacked legitimacy and never developed deeply rooted constituencies. Thus, despite a constitution and an elected assembly, Iraqi politics was more a shifting alliance of important personalities and cliques than a democracy in the Western sense. The absence of broadly based political institutions inhibited the early nationalist movement's ability to make deep inroads into Iraq's diverse social structure.

RunningMn9 wrote:Yes. I was replying to you, but my comment was for Smoove's benefit. If my employer is currently giving me $X in salary, and paying $Y for my health insurance - just start paying me ($X + $Y). Then they never have to deal with health insurance uncertainty again. That's a win for them.

You all have much higher faith in your employers than what I've seen. There were municipalities I worked for that were thrilled I wasn't on their health plan because I had coverage through my spouse. I think the biggest "bonus" I saw in my salary as a result was $2,000 a year -- a fraction (I think about 10%) of what the plan would have ended up costing them if I opted in. I think initially corporations would be all for it. But then (as I said) after they realize the tax write-off they no longer have and people aren't getting the full $Y for benefits it will turn into another crap-show.

They "win" in the sense that they don't have to pay money to an insurer or argue over what medical procedure infringes on their religious beliefs. I have no faith that this will somehow result in the American worker taking home more money in their paychecks.

Smoove_B wrote:You all have much higher faith in your employers than what I've seen. There were municipalities I worked for that were thrilled I wasn't on their health plan because I had coverage through my spouse.

You're brain is stuck on the current model. In most cases, if you have insurance through your spouse, you will get a kick back, but it is miniscule compared to the cost of insurance - because they still have to pay for health insurance for most of your co-workers. We are talking about freeing all employers from ever having to deal with health insurance again.

Smoove_B wrote:I think initially corporations would be all for it.

That's all it takes. It's a one time thing. They make the decision to cut the cord, and that's that.

Smoove_B wrote:But then (as I said) after they realize the tax write-off they no longer have and people aren't getting the full $Y for benefits it will turn into another crap-show.

Hopefully these employers have better accountants than you. Employee salary and wages are also tax-deductible. Businesses are taxed on profits, not revenue. Employee salary and wages (among other things, like sick leave, vacation, bonuses, etc) all reduce profits (and thus reduce taxes). So moving the money from column A to column B is going to be tax neutral.

Smoove_B wrote:They "win" in the sense that they don't have to pay money to an insurer or argue over what medical procedure infringes on their religious beliefs.

They "win" in the sense that they no longer have to deal with the annual escalation of health insurance costs that have been dogging them for more than a decade, making their employees hate them. While one would have to think that there would be some indirect issues in terms of cost of living increases, they can still be more insulated from the problem. And because we are out shopping for our own insurance, insurers have to start competing to meet your needs instead of your employers needs.

Employers will claim poverty because of the economy and claim most of the savings for themselves, blaming Obamacare. There is no altruism or total economic rationalism at play.

Shifting coats of labor onto labor instead of capital is bad news for labor in the current economy.

Zarathud wrote:Shifting coats of labor onto labor instead of capital is bad news for labor in the current economy.

I don't agree that this is (or at least should be) a cost of labor. Any more than a gallon of milk or my car insurance is a cost of labor. It's stupid to have some other entity buying things that I need, that has little to no knowledge of (or interest in) satisfying my actual needs.

I'm looking forward to a corporation closely held by Jehovah's Witnesses.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Zarathud wrote:Shifting coats of labor onto labor instead of capital is bad news for labor in the current economy.

I don't agree that this is (or at least should be) a cost of labor. Any more than a gallon of milk or my car insurance is a cost of labor. It's stupid to have some other entity buying things that I need, that has little to no knowledge of (or interest in) satisfying my actual needs.

His point is that someone has to pay for it. Currently it's the employer, so it's a cost of labour. I get that your new ideal is to no longer have this tied to employers, but the money has to come from somewhere. You can stop calling it a cost of labour, because it's not, but it's a cost of living, which puts demands on salaries/companies paying those salaries.

You need to repair a machine like you need to maintain a healthy work force. Medical care is like lubricating the gears on a printing press, particularly for high tech fields which leverage a few workers. We talk of health care as something an employer does to attract profitable workers but it's also a fundamental way of keeping your existing workers productive.

So if a company like Hobby Lobby doing business in a state like Massachusetts, can they opt out of gay spousal coverage as well? Or perhaps just of any coverage that might be plausibly tied to the icky gay sex?

Isgrimnur wrote:So if a company like Hobby Lobby doing business in a state like Massachusetts, can they opt out of gay spousal coverage as well? Or perhaps just of any coverage that might be plausibly tied to the icky gay sex?

Funny you should ask that...

I'm sure most of us saw that Obama is planning on issuing an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. But not so fast! My religious freedom is being trampled by giving gay Americans the same rights as me!

This week, in the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court ruled that a religious employer could not be required to provide employees with certain types of contraception. That decision is beginning to reverberate: A group of faith leaders is urging the Obama administration to include a religious exemption in a forthcoming LGBT anti-discrimination action.

Their call, in a letter sent to the White House Tuesday, attempts to capitalize on the Supreme Court case by arguing that it shows the administration must show more deference to the prerogatives of religion.

"We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need," the letter states.

Zarathud wrote:You need to repair a machine like you need to maintain a healthy work force. Medical care is like lubricating the gears on a printing press, particularly for high tech fields which leverage a few workers. We talk of health care as something an employer does to attract profitable workers but it's also a fundamental way of keeping your existing workers productive.

It isn't the employers job to maintain the ability of the employee to be productive. Unless they own them as they would a printing press. If the worker doesn't remain productive they get replaced by someone who is. The line of thought that this should be an employer responsibility is a mental fallacy. If it held water they would be tasked with making sure you eat right, exercise and educating you. While they can and sometimes do contribute to that it isn't their responsibility it is that of the worker who wishes to be employed.

An employer who neglects his or her equipment is either short sighted or willing to burn out equipment. An employer willing to do either to people isn't a good employer.

If corporations can have religious beliefs, the nation should hold them to a higher moral standard than before. After all, it's in their own best interests.

Rip wrote:

Zarathud wrote:You need to repair a machine like you need to maintain a healthy work force. Medical care is like lubricating the gears on a printing press, particularly for high tech fields which leverage a few workers. We talk of health care as something an employer does to attract profitable workers but it's also a fundamental way of keeping your existing workers productive.

It isn't the employers job to maintain the ability of the employee to be productive. Unless they own them as they would a printing press. If the worker doesn't remain productive they get replaced by someone who is. The line of thought that this should be an employer responsibility is a mental fallacy. If it held water they would be tasked with making sure you eat right, exercise and educating you. While they can and sometimes do contribute to that it isn't their responsibility it is that of the worker who wishes to be employed.

Actually giving us incentives to eat right, exercise, and offering us free continuing education is in large part why I'll never leave the Applied Physics Lab and continue to bust my butt for them.

Zarathud wrote:An employer who neglects his or her equipment is either short sighted or willing to burn out equipment. An employer willing to do either to people isn't a good employer.

If corporations can have religious beliefs, the nation should hold them to a higher moral standard than before. After all, it's in their own best interests.

Treating your horses well instead of beating them to death has been well known for decades. Hell, we've even known that about humans since the 70's or so. This is not rocket science (any more). It's amazing how often people need to relearn what the generations that came before had already learned, and well documented.

That being said, treating them well doesn't not necessarily equate to taking care of them.

Is it wrong to point out that employees aren't capital equipment or horses?