Why shouldn't Hobby Lobby have to pay its women employees more?

[wiggs]

A 'fix' that SCOTUS could have discussed is this: if Hobby Lobby doesn't have to provide full access to preventative health care to women because they find participation in health care insurance too close and distasteful, WHY SHOULDN'T THEY HAVE TO PAY WOMEN MORE IN COMPENSATION so that women can seek their own pathway to health without involving their employer?

I know Hobby Lobby would love to tell its employees how to spend their actual paychecks...what movies they can spend their money on, what kinds of modest dresses they buy, what books they can read, etc.....but it's agreed upon that the money employees earn is theirs to do with what they want. So why do Hobby Lobby and SCOTUS believe they can tell employees how to spend the part of their compensation related to insurance? Hobby Lobby isn't actually paying doctors...they are paying for HEALTH COVERAGE AS COMPENSATION. IMO how the employee chooses to use the health coverage must be up to the employee.

Even so...a logical fix, it seems to me, would be to remove Hobby Lobby from the insurance loop with respect to these services but doesn't allow Hobby Lobby to effectively reduce the compensation to women it currently provides.

IMO the 'religious freedom' argument for closely held corporations is bogus and is more geared toward ideology and politics than fairness...and I would have preferred that SCOTUS rule that corporations aren't people and don't have religion.

This argument has nothing to do with religious freedom, the science of conception, or employer approval of which medical treatments you need or want. It is a fundamental aspect of what 'compensation' means in the relationship between employer and employee.

[WillowTree]

1. Hobby Lobby is self insured.......

.......so they are, in fact, paying the doctors, hospitals, pharmacies etc.

Not an argument on their behalf, just a point of fact.

[leftstreet]

3. Irrelevant. It's still compensation n/t

[WillowTree]

5. I could swear that I came right out and said.......

.......that I wasn't arguing the premise of the OP, just correcting a statement of fact.

Yep.......just went back and checked and, whadda ya know? I said that very thing.

[leftstreet]

6. No, you're suggesting self-insuring makes a difference

It doesn't. You can't pay compensation in the form of marbles by claiming you manufacture your own marbles

There was no statement in the OP that needed to be corrected

[WillowTree]

7. I suggested no such thing.

I can't help it if you read into it something that wasn't there. I merely corrected an erroneous statement in the OP.

Have a pleasant day and a really nice holiday.

[leftstreet]

8. Oh sorry. What was the erroneous statement in the OP?

[WillowTree]

9. "Hobby Lobby isn't actually paying doctors...they are paying for HEALTH COVERAGE AS COMPENSATION."

[The Wielding Truth]

2. Yes. Totally, yes. It's part of the pay package and it's not equal.

[leftstreet]

4. Excellent questions

It is a fundamental aspect of what 'compensation' means in the relationship between employer and employee.

Everyone seems to be missing this

[YarnAddict]

10. Well, then,

wouldn't they only have to be paying an additional amount to the women who use the four types of bc they are'nt covering? Would they have to discriminate against post-menopausal women, or women who are celebate, or women who use the bc they don't object to?

[wiggs]

11. All good questions that point to the ridiculousness of the overall question. However,

I'd say that compensation for health care costs as part of overall compensation is not so specific as to vary between employees. ACA requires that companies which provide are required to provide health care coverage are required to provide coverage for BASIC PREVENTATIVE CARE. Womens' reproductive health counts as basic health management.

Hobby Lobby won the right not to provide basic preventative care based on their claims about religious objection. They should provide alternative means of offering basic health care by increasing compensation to women so they can cover their basic preventative health care costs...whatever the specific health issues are. It is Hobby Lobby's obligation under the law....SCOTUS notwithstanding.

[YarnAddict]

12. I understsand what you are saying,

but, would that involve a woman having to tell a supervisor/manager/corporate exec the details of her medical needs? I can't imagine having to do that, especially if I knew that the person I was telling might make moral judgments that could affect my employment.

I wish we could completely separate healthcare from employment. Problem solved.