Hey, don't restrict my right to discriminate! But in all seriousness, I think it was a big deal on the face of it. It gave legal grounds to restrict the access of all women to complete healthcare based on the doctrine of a preferred religion outside of a religious organization. Their civil rights were trumped.
Agreed completely, I'm rarely political and don't usually like to go the "rah! all corporations are evil!" route, but it really is unsettling here that the civil rights of a corporation were held up over those of women in general. This shows us that over half the SCOTUS views women less as people than the corporations that employ them.
If the intent of the mandate is so that all citizens get a complete lunch, then in that context where a complete lunch is guaranteed by law, then yes, the employer has restricted access that citizens are entitled to. Restriction and access are relative and contextual terms. If the mandate is to provide a degree of access, and the employers actions prevent it to that degree, then to that extent, the access has been restricted.
Perhaps some of my confusion is semantic; I think it is torturing the language a bit to draw an equivalence between "decline to provide" and "restrict access." It seems peculiar that to recognize, in my simpleminded reading, "making it more difficult for someone to get something" we cannot simply observe the parties involved but must consider the existence of some legislation -- wait, no, the intent behind the legislation. How do we even know the intent? Is it written in the preamble? I also think that for the word "restriction" to apply it should be meaningfully more difficult for the person to obtain what they want compared to when they had no interaction with the other party. I have plenty of lunch options, so if my boss declines to hold back a portion of my salary to buy me a tuna sandwich, it does not restrict my access to lunch (while reducing my income to buy tuna sandwiches would restrict my choices). This is true even if workplace tuna sandwiches are mandatory and other bosses provide them. I had the same access to nutrition before taking the job; if anything, the job helps me get what I want since the boss cannot control my spending. Medical benefits are a very complicated way of obtaining services, but in the end the customer (employee, in this case) is still paying for the IUD. As a form of insurance, employees who don't get IUDs will pay for the ones who do. That's not necessarily bad; I don't mind paying for coverage for cancer treatment even though I hope never to qualify for the benefit, and a negotiated group rate might be better than that for individuals. But would it not be better to maintain and encourage flexibility in what is covered, rather than forcing everyone to make the same choice? The fact that employers exist who are morally opposed to certain benefits suggests that there are also employees who do not want those benefits. By forcing some employees to pay for coverage for a benefit they do not want, their freedom is slightly eroded, their choices diminished, and diversity in society is reduced.
I don't think the lunch issue highlights it very well, as it is so mundane. A handicap accessible doorway highlights the issue much more IMO. In this context, we are talking about the SCOTUS interpreting legislation, and legislative intent is something that they typically consider. Of course, after the messy legislative process, it would be difficult to say that there is one clear intent to any law, but we don't make laws for the sake of having them. :) And yet, the legislature thought the accessibility issue important enough to create the mandate. Of course, many disagree with the necessity of the mandate, but the issue at hand was: given the mandate, can an employer choose to opt out of specific portions of it on religious grounds? One might not feel that the access to some women's healthcare is a compelling thing to guarantee, but once guaranteed by law, the question becomes, to what extent can the employer refuse to provide it, and could this extend to other parts of the mandate, or other groups of people covered by it? (i.e. Can an employer refuse to provide dinner as well, or only refuse lunch to Jews?) Maybe to some extent. But these are the difficult choices in a shared society. At some points our rights to equal treatment pale in consideration to the costs to ensure them, and at some points our rights to freely operate pale in comparison to the cost that others pay to ensure that freedom.It seems peculiar that to recognize, in my simpleminded reading, "making it more difficult for someone to get something" we cannot simply observe the parties involved but must consider the existence of some legislation -- wait, no, the intent behind the legislation. How do we even know the intent?
I also think that for the word "restriction" to apply it should be meaningfully more difficult for the person to obtain what they want compared to when they had no interaction with the other party. I have plenty of lunch options, so if my boss declines to hold back a portion of my salary to buy me a tuna sandwich, it does not restrict my access to lunch (while reducing my income to buy tuna sandwiches would restrict my choices). This is true even if workplace tuna sandwiches are mandatory and other bosses provide them. I had the same access to nutrition before taking the job; if anything, the job helps me get what I want since the boss cannot control my spending.
But would it not be better to maintain and encourage flexibility in what is covered, rather than forcing everyone to make the same choice? The fact that employers exist who are morally opposed to certain benefits suggests that there are also employees who do not want those benefits. By forcing some employees to pay for coverage for a benefit they do not want, their freedom is slightly eroded, their choices diminished, and diversity in society is reduced.
By my preference, all employers are equally free to choose what benefits they offer. All employees are equally free to choose where to work. By your preference, employers are equally forced to choose benefits that satisfy certain rules. Employees are equally forced to pay for those benefits. Naturally, there will be winners and losers with each approach, costs and benefits. I don’t think you or I have good evidence to show that the benefits will exceed the costs in either case. I think our difference in opinion comes down to your higher tolerance for coercion.but we don't make laws for the sake of having them. :)
I might choose a different emoticon. Legislation is frequently enacted for bad reasons and to bad ends. Public choice theory tells us that those who bear the burden of bad legislation will often have scant incentive to oppose it, and the special interests who benefit will be highly motivated to propagate it. No news here.the issue at hand was: given the mandate, can an employer choose to opt out of specific portions of it
This is a specific legal question, but I felt that you opened the discussion to broader issues by introducing Maltese Buick drivers.But these are the difficult choices ... equal treatment
“Equal” is an attractive word, but it comes down to application.
Do you really? I hope not. I believe our difference lies in our regard for consistency of social economic theory. IMO one of history's most repeated lessons is that the more that a society strives for (or is made to strive for) a logically consistent social economic approach, whatever the approach, the worse off those people are, and the longer that they strive to those ends, the greater the damage done. The reason being, is that application of theory on one level invariably leads to contradictions upon another. Here, for example, we have a medical system where all patients, able to pay or not, must be treated by law. Thus the costs incurred by those that cannot or do not pay, are shouldered by those that do, by law. If this proportion of those that do not pay grows substantial for some reason (perhaps costs outpace earnings), then you have a system that legislates a significant burden upon a specific population that arose out of one that sought to avoid such a development. The examples for these kinds of evolution are plentiful, and dog every earnest implementation of a preferred socio-economic theory. It is no coincidence that every effort to enact communist policies leads to graft. Philosophers and college students should spend their time thinking about the merits of socio-economic theories, but policy makers should spend little, because the conclusions that such efforts produce have relatively no utility when compared to the vast amount of historical and observable data available, which increases day by day. There are no points for philosophical consistency. To date, governments are demonstrably better agents of policing than NGOs, and NGOs are demonstrably better builders of automobiles. Perhaps this may one day change, but it won't happen overnight, and no thinking person with their ear to the ground would be caught unawares. When we debate these questions, we are consistently expected to use current or historical circumstances to debate the merits of some greater philosophical truth. This is a exercise in self-deception. Although this exercise is not without merit, it should be understood that there is no greater philosophical truth. The belief that a greater socio-economic truth exists is rooted in faith. The value of an education in socio-economic theory is not based upon finding a 'best one', but such that an individual can identify and apply modes of thinking, and having a broad understanding of the logic behind these modes, create a unique approach that works best in the current situation. Unfortunately such nuance is out of political fashion.I think our difference in opinion comes down to your higher tolerance for coercion.
I shouldn't assume that this is the entire reason for our difference in opinion. But I do think that you (like most people I talk to, and like myself in the past) oppose coercion in principle, but often overlook it in practice. Many people do not even find the word applicable to most government behavior, having accepted some idea of a social contract. It's not my place to convince you that you, or other people, are being coerced if you do not feel put upon. Maybe it isn't coercion if you don't object. And I don't intend to whine about myself as a victim; I am fortunate and comfortable and so far no one has thrown a flashbang grenade into my child's crib. Here you have outlined a position stating that efforts at consistency in social theory leads to harm. I would dispute that the choice of, say, communism vs. democratic capitalism matters less to human welfare than the circumstance of how consistently the ideals of each model are applied. Of course, if you make enough of the right exceptions, you will get better results. How do you get the right exceptions? You can leave it to luck, but that doesn't inspire confidence. The alternative is to rely on carefully-thought-out policies for being advantageously flexible. In other words, another textbook political theory. Though the moral and political issues are important, I prefer a more scientific approach of discussing practical, measurable indications of success in specific areas. You assert one:
Are you sure? If you believe this, and it is not simply a matter of faith, you must have evidence for your belief. We have plenty of data about how policing in the United States works. You could argue that the bad examples are notorious exceptions to the norm, which is good enough to excuse some amount of misbehavior. But you go farther, asserting that the police we have are better than Brand X. Government enforces a strict monopoly on most police activity, so it's hard to imagine what the alternative might look like, much less demonstrate that it is inferior. No doubt, there would be abuses. In my preferred dystopia, "Law enforcement agents will take advantage of their authority, abusing innocent people, and victims will face an uphill battle seeking redress. Now and then an especially outrageous case will lead to a large settlement for the victim, but do you think the law enforcement company will be shut down? Of course not; it will be a simple matter of apologizing to the community, implementing better training and standards, and reassuring investors and customers that the mishap won't happen again. Only the most abusive, incompetent, and corrupt law enforcement companies would ever be forced out of business." The few glimpses we have of private policing are not exactly suggestive of Abu Ghraib, e.g. Paid Private Security in Oakland, CA. Probably the biggest fear is that commercial cops will give better service to wealthier communities and poor folks will get the shaft. (This image is not so very hard to imagine, for some reason.) Do you feel that T-Mobile, Amazon, and Wal-Mart give unacceptable service to poor customers? Do you think destitute people get much benefit as free riders (not quite free, they pay taxes too) today? Would they not benefit from commercial police services provided to their less-poor neighbors? Would they appreciate having a no-frills 911 option over a no-answer 911, or worse? If Brand X plausibly led to our country having 23.4% of the world's prisoners, many of them locked up for drug offenses widely perceived as unjustified, I would expect you to claim immediate victory in the argument.I think our difference in opinion comes down to your higher tolerance for coercion.
Do you really? I hope not.
Sam has a problem. He has a number of very poor nephews and nieces. He has been working with a charity organization to help them, but the organization needs more funding. So Sam goes out and starts demanding money from his neighbors to give to the charity group. If anyone refuses to contribute, Sam kidnaps that person and locks them in a cage.
governments are demonstrably better agents of policing than NGOs