The heart of Marty's argument (I focus for now on item 1 below) is, I think, an
empirical claim: Large employers such as Hobby Lobby would be better off just
dropping coverage, paying the $2000/employee/year tax, "us[ing] some of [the]
enormous cost savings" to compensate employees for the lost
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/assets/pdf/CN922431216.PDF
Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://l
With respect to the first issue discussed by Eugene and Marty, here are the
average per-policy employer contributions in the United States reported by
the Kaiser Family Foundation:
Family policy - $11,237
Employee plus one policy - $7,797
Single employee policy - $4,266
http://kff.org/state-catego
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/athiest-group-s-flying-spaghetti-monster-displayed-in-wisconsin-capitol
Pastafarians don’t generally evangelize quite this much.
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Pr
Thanks, Eugene, for the close read and detailed reactions.
1. On your first point, even if the 4980H(a) tax were the equivalent of a
$3000 assessment (because it's paid with after-tax dollars), the average
cost for providing health insurance to employees is, as I understand it,
closer to $10,000,
I appreciate Alan's argument, though I'm not sure the analogy
quite works, given that there's likely no RFRA entitlement to a draft exemption
in any event, see Gillette.
1. But I was wondering if I could probe a little further on
Marty's factual argument. As I
