Hacker News Reader

Comment by proksoup | Hacker News Reader

I disagree with Hobby Lobby's decision, but support their right to make it.

There are different types of contraceptives, and that we use the same word for all types is disingenuous and muddies the argument.

The day after pill is very different from a condom, and at least a little different from "the pill".

View on HN

"I disagree with Hobby Lobby's decision, but support their right to make it."

Well I don't, the money belongs to the employees and it's not up to Hobby Lobby to decide how they can spend it.

Then let's separate employment from health insurance already and remove the ambiguity. The ACA only doubled-down on this problem.

I totally agree that this would be the best way to handle it, but I also don't see the problem with being forced to pay for something you don't agree with. Isn't that basically what government does? Why aren't these people also outraged that their tax dollars are paying for missiles blowing up funerals and weddings in the Middle East?

Catholic theologians have spent a lot of time analyzing this problem. The short version is that there's a pretty big moral difference between giving money to somebody (even if you know they're going to do something evil with it), and arranging for the evil yourself. You may have a pretty good idea that your employee Bob is going to spend his paycheck at the local saloon and whorehouse, but that's rather different from personally opening up a tab for him there.

Wow that's an unfortunate conclusion.

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" and whatnot though eh.

I have a difficult time seeing moral differences where there are no practical differences.

If the government says, "Give us $X so that we may use it to purchase a health plan that includes contraceptive coverage," the effect is exactly the same as if they said, "Spend $X purchasing a health plan that includes contraceptive coverage." I don't see how one could be moral and the other not.

I can see it at the point where it changes from spending money to taking actions. Actually dispensing or taking contraceptives would be qualitatively different from paying for a health plan. But if it's just your money going to an insurance company, I don't see why it matters if it passes through the government first.

Basically, all this boils down to is whether "ends justify the means" or "means justify the ends". In the Catholic case, it would seem to be the latter, but that's only because they're looking at distant ends (e.g. heaven as reward for good) rather than immediate results.

Thing is though, "ignorance is bliss", or so it's said. If you were aware that life insurance companies across the US were about to make a huge gamble that might put them out of business, would you stick with yours (supposing you had one) if they (a) told you they were going to make the gamble or (b) not told you? (I suppose we could have also referred to purchasing manufacturer warranties from unsteady businesses - same principle.)

Money going to the government via taxes doesn't necessarily end up paying for contraceptives. It's supposed to be for other things. We pay taxes knowing full well that people are siphoning off money for their own gain. We don't like it, sure, but we pay taxes because of what the money is intended for. "It's the thought that counts." :/

From your last paragraph, I think you've misunderstood my point. The problem with taxes isn't that it gets siphoned off for private gain. The problem is that it intentionally goes to do a bunch of horrible stuff that people disagree with. My tax money helped invade Iraq with all its horrible consequences. My tax money helps kill wedding and funeral attendees in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It pays to imprison people for non-violent drug crimes.

I'll fight to get the government to stop spending my money on these things, but on the basis that they shouldn't be doing it at all. I'd never argue that my own personal tax money should only go to things I agree with, because the whole point of taxes and government is to take collective decisions and collective action. I may not always agree with the results, but the basic concept is important and useful.

Why is it OK to send money to the US treasury when you know some small part of it will buy Hellfire missiles, but not OK to send money to Aetna when you know some small part of it will buy Plan B?

Rereading it, I see what you're saying. It's a fine line point. In a way, then, I agree with you, but - let's take an interesting stance - supposing we assume that missiles can be used for good (in some way). I seem to recall the pope justifying the war against Nazi Germany. Consequently, there is a positive use. Contraceptives, however, could only be used for something the church considers immoral.

Did I catch your logic this time?

Can't they both be immoral? Whole problem is catholicism is a state supporting religion that says "your government doing evil isn't your problem".

I pay my taxes, but I consider it the least moral thing I do, for my own morality.

I look at paying taxes the same way I view my drug addicted friend that just needs a fix so he can make it til tomorrow. I don't like it, I'm enabling his problem, but I don't want him to get into a worse situation or die.

Of course, they can both be immoral. If someone argued against both of them on the basis of morality, I'd probably disagree but I'd respect the argument. I just can't understand why people find it immoral to be forced to pay for contraceptives but not to be forced to pay for missiles and bullets.

I agree that separating them would help in this regard. We should; however, consider why it was done this way. I can only speculate on the matter, but tend to think it was bundled with payroll for simpler accounting (assuming tax deductible insurance premiums stay intact).

Initially, it was bundled with payroll because, during World War II, employers were restricted in their ability to give pay raises to employees. They started buying health insurance as a way of giving a raise without giving a raise, as it were.

It continued because "that's the way it was done" by the time WWII was over.

The money belongs to the employees? Only if you mean that the employer buys the health-insurance plan with money that would otherwise go to the employee as salary. (I presume that you are not saying that the company's money rightfully belongs to the employees. If you are saying that, I disagree, strongly.)

But it gets muddied because of taxes. Most people get to pay for their health insurance pre-tax, whereas if the company just gave them the money, they'd pay for it with post-tax dollars. Also, many employees contribute some of the cost themselves. So it's fair to say that part of the money belongs to the employees, but it's not fair to say that all of it does. The rest belongs either to the employer or the government.

Argh. Also, many employers contribute some of the cost themselves. (Though one could argue that the employee could have had that part as salary...)

What money belongs to employees? Are all of Hobby Lobby's employees also owners of the company?

The benefits are part of an employee's compensation. It's something they earn by working there. It contractually belongs to them, not to Hobby Lobby.

What "contractually belongs to them" is exactly what they agreed to work for when they were hired. If that included health benefits exclusive of any particular medication, that used to be a consideration between them and their employer. You may think it better to live in a place where the terms of those contracts are stipulated by the government.

The reason for the U.S. having enumerated powers where states could pass such laws but the federal government couldn't was that if you disagreed with your state's world-view, you could leave that state for one more aligned with your beliefs.

Your premise is incorrect. If the employer were to replace the employees health insurance with a product costing 50% less, the employees would not necessarily receive the former cost of the insurance as new compensation.

There may be specific individuals contracted with Hobby Lobby, but the general "employee" doesn't have any such contract.

> The day after pill is very different

Why? They both prevent conception.

The morning-after pill has two methods of action, IIRC - preventing ovulation, and making the womb inhospitable for implantation. In the latter case conception occurs.

We're wandering from the topic, but I don't believe that's correct. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel#Emergency_birth... -

The primary mechanism of action of levonorgestrel as a progestogen-only emergency contraceptive pill is, according to International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), to prevent fertilization by inhibition of ovulation and thickening of the mucosa of cervix. FIGO has stated that: "review of the evidence suggests that LNG [levonorgestreol] ECPs cannot prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.

(references on the wiki page as always)

They've removed the notice from that specific type of ECP (and I was not aware of that), but it's still present on other types, including some that are common in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#Mechan...

Conception =/= Fertilization. The latter case you mentioned involves fertilization, not conception.

Your definition differs from every popular and academic source I've ever found.

Example: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conception

"Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization."

Farther down on that same page: "the fertilization of an ovum by a sperm in the Fallopian tube followed by implantation in the womb"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com