My understanding is that that IRS reg is not about the option of declining to offer a plan at all -- something that I'd think the statute guarantees and that the executive cannot change -- but instead about whether certain employer-employee arrangements for health care costs are excludable from income. The IRS Notice is here:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-13-54.pdf For the life of me, I don't understand much of it, and would be grateful if any of you can translate it into English. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Arthur Spitzer <artspit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Marty- > > Like you, I had thought that "the law doesn't require HL to offer an > employee health insurance plan at all," and that that was an escape hatch > from its claimed religious problem. But from a recent news article it looks > like employers no longer have that option, as a realistic matter: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/26/us/irs-bars-employers-from-dumping-workers-into-health-exchanges.html?_r=0 > > WASHINGTON — Many employers had thought they could shift health costs to > the government by sending their employees to a health insurance exchange > with a tax-free contribution of cash to help pay premiums, but the Obama > administration has squelched the idea in a new ruling. Such arrangements do > not satisfy the health care law > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier>, > the administration said, and employers may be subject to a tax penalty of > $100 a day — or $36,500 a year — for each employee who goes into the > individual marketplace. > > The ruling this month, by the Internal Revenue Service > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/internal_revenue_service/index.html?inline=nyt-org>, > blocks any wholesale move by employers to dump employees into the exchanges. > Am I missing something? > > Art Spitzer > > > > *Warning* > *: this message is subject to monitoring by the NSA.* > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I agree with Mark's correction that the complaint of the Greens is not >> that their employees' use of contraceptive burdens their religion. >> >> But it's also not that they have to "buy insurance that specifically >> covers the drugs." For thing, the law doesn't require HL to offer an >> employee health insurance plan at all. For another, the Greens aren't >> shareholders, and therefore aren't "buying" anything. Hobby Lobby, Inc. >> --as opposed to the Greens-- is contracting for an insurance plan -- but of >> course that plan is not made available to their employees gratis; it is a >> part of their compensation package, provided in exchange for their labor, >> just like wages. >> >> The nature of the way in which the Greens are alleged to be required to >> act in violation of any religious obligations, therefore, is not at all >> obvious. >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Scarberry, Mark < >> mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu> wrote: >> >>> Jon, >>> >>> I think you don't understand, or are ignoring, the point of view of the >>> Hobby Lobby parties. They don't object to employees buying what the Hobby >>> Lobby parties consider to be abortifacient drugs. I don't think they >>> monitor what their employees do with wages or would take any action against >>> employees who buy or use such drugs. They object to being required >>> themselves to take an action specifically related to abortion -- buying >>> insurance that specifically covers the drugs. You might object to buying a >>> gun for an employee, even though the recipient would be the one who uses >>> it. You might, if you were a pacifist, object to being drafted to serve as >>> an army medic or supply clerk, even though you would not be killing anyone >>> but merely be advancing the army's operations. >>> >>> I understand that some people object to this characterization, but it >>> doesn't move the discussion forward to just assume that it isn't the >>> position taken by the objectors in Hobby Lobby. >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> Mark S. Scarberry >>> Pepperdine University School of Law >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> > On Jun 9, 2014, at 2:35 PM, "mallamud" <malla...@camden.rutgers.edu> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > There is some authority for not preferring religion over non-religion. >>> > I do not think religious people should get exemptions reasons not >>> > connected to the practice of their religion (church services, prayer, >>> > lighting candles, sacrificing chickens etc.) To me many requests sound >>> > like "I think it is wrong for religious reasons" and therefore other >>> > people should not engage in that behavior. E.g. I will not pay my >>> taxes >>> > because taxes pay for killing people. No one is asking the owners of >>> > Hobby Lobby to engage in activities that they believe offend their >>> > religion; they are seeking not to pay employees in such a way that >>> > certain contraceptives would be covered. The decision to use or not >>> use >>> > the contraceptives is the employees'. One difficulty is that the >>> courts >>> > are loath to inquire into to the closeness of the connection of the >>> > claim to the religious belief. But without limits exemptions will >>> > become legion. >>> > >>> > Exemptions usually involve some unfairness. That would be mitigated if >>> > religious exemptions were limited to the actual practice of religion >>> > rather than attempts to impose beliefs on others through refusing to >>> > comply with general laws. Smith is a good example and, as we know, does >>> > not stop you from sacrificing chickens because people in the community >>> > are offended. Take it outside the church or home and give exemptions >>> to >>> > general laws and that will create problems if the exemptions become >>> wide >>> > enough to make it seem that religious folks have general privileges in >>> > society that secular folks do not. Cf. Affirmative action. >>> > >>> > I noted previously Scalia's citation (in during oral argument) of the >>> > overwhelming majority extending the VRA as evidence that the law was >>> not >>> > carefully considered. During RFRA's passage and thereafter I focused on >>> > conservatives articulating the issue as one in which the Supreme Court >>> > disrespected religion, and those on the other side of the spectrum >>> > articulated the Smith decision as having disrespected constitutional >>> > rights. From discussion about Scalia with lawyers and non-lawyers, I >>> > cannot help thinking that a dislike of Scalia contributed to one side's >>> > support of RFRA. >>> > >>> > Jon >>> > >>> > >>> >> On 2014-06-09 17:00, Steven Jamar wrote: >>> >> “nones”? >>> >> Huh. I knew that was a thing, but didn’t really expect to see it >>> >> here. >>> >> >>> >> Steve >>> >> >>> >> On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:49 PM, mallamud <malla...@camden.rutgers.edu> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> I agree with Alan's statement below, stated better than I did. I >>> >>> would add that we now do/should include the nones within the system. >>> >>> >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 2014-06-08 22:36, Alan Brownstein wrote: >>> >>>> If divisive means that people will be upset by a substantive >>> >>>> decision >>> >>>> than Eugene is clearly correct. I have always thought the issue was >>> >>>> whether a decision was one that provoked political divisions along >>> >>>> religious lines in the sense that if government could promote >>> >>>> religion >>> >>>> (or interfere with religion) religious groups would have an >>> >>>> additional >>> >>>> incentive to organize and mobilize as religious groups in order to >>> >>>> make sure that it was their faith that the government promoted and >>> >>>> that it was not their faith that was subject to government >>> >>>> interference. Placing a church-state issue beyond the scope of >>> >>>> political decision-making by subjecting it to constitutional >>> >>>> constraints avoided (or at least mitigated) these kinds of >>> >>>> political/religious divisions. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> There is probably a better term for this concern than divisiveness. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Alan Brownstein >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ________________________________________ >>> >>>> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu >>> >>>> [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene >>> >>>> [vol...@law.ucla.edu] >>> >>>> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 4:54 PM >>> >>>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >>> >>>> Subject: "Divisiveness" >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I agree very much with Tom on this point. In most >>> >>>> controversies, both sides are acting in ways that could plausibly >>> >>>> be >>> >>>> labeled as "divisive." Government religious speech may be seen as >>> >>>> "divisive," because it may alienate members of other religious >>> >>>> groups; >>> >>>> but prohibitions on such speech, or litigation seeking such >>> >>>> prohibition, may be as divisive or more so. A pro-Hobby-Lobby >>> >>>> decision might be divisive, but an anti-Hobby-Lobby decision might >>> >>>> be >>> >>>> divisive. Indeed, academic criticism of a pro-Hobby-Lobby decision >>> >>>> (or an anti-Hobby-Lobby decision) might be divisive -- and so was >>> >>>> the >>> >>>> implementation of the mandate without a broad religious exemption, >>> >>>> as >>> >>>> Tom points out. The Employment Division v. Smith regime can be >>> >>>> seen >>> >>>> as divisive -- but the RFRA regime, or the Sherbert regime, which >>> >>>> makes controversial judicially implemented religious accommodations >>> >>>> possible, can apparently be divisive, too. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Indeed, in my experience, most people -- I speak generally >>> >>>> here, and not with a focus on this list -- can easily see the >>> >>>> potential "divisiveness" of decisions they dislike on substantive >>> >>>> grounds, but don't even notice the divisiveness of decisions they >>> >>>> think are sound. After all, if one thinks a decision is sound, >>> >>>> it's >>> >>>> easy to view those who disagree as just unreasonable, so that their >>> >>>> feelings of alienation don't really count (since they deserved to >>> >>>> lose, and are now just being sore losers). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Of course, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Eugene >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Tom Berg writes: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> I get those arguments, but they don't really seem to rest on a >>> >>>>> ruling for Hobby >>> >>>>> Lobby being "divisive"--they rest on it being (assertedly) >>> >>>>> substantively wrong. >>> >>>>> One could just as easily charge the Obama administration with >>> >>>>> being "divisive" >>> >>>>> (undermining "harmony," to use Jon's term) by adopting the mandate >>> >>>>> in the first >>> >>>>> place. (See Rick Garnett's piece on why arguments about >>> >>>>> divisiveness should do >>> >>>>> only very limited work in religion cases.) >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >>> >>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>> >>>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed >>> >>>> as >>> >>>> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that >>> >>>> are >>> >>>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can >>> >>>> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >>> >>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>> >>>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed >>> >>>> as >>> >>>> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that >>> >>>> are >>> >>>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can >>> >>>> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >>> >>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>> >>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >>> >>> >>> >>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed >>> >>> as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that >>> >>> are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can >>> >>> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 >>> >> Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual >>> >> Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org >>> >> Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 >>> >> http://sdjlaw.org >>> >> >>> >> Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime, >>> >> Therefore, we are saved by hope. >>> >> Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any >>> >> immediate context of history; >>> >> Therefore, we are saved by faith. >>> >> Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone. >>> >> Therefore, we are saved by love. >>> >> No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our >>> >> friend or foe as from our own; >>> >> Therefore, we are saved by the final form of love which is >>> >> forgiveness. >>> >> >>> >> Reinhold Neibuhr >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >>> >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>> >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >>> >> >>> >> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >>> >> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >>> >> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can >>> >> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >>> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >>> > >>> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >>> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or >>> wrongly) forward the messages to others. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >>> >>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >>> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >>> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or >>> wrongly) forward the messages to others. >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >> >> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or >> wrongly) forward the messages to others. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
