The Supreme Court and Hobby Lobby make a strong case for removing corporations completely from the lives of their employees.
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby towards a recent case where it was argued that HL should not need to fund health care if it is used to do things that are against their religious beliefs. I’m not one to point out the logical flaws in iron age control schemes, well I have been, but today I want to do something differently. This case actually shows us why you cannot have a health care system as the US does currently.
Our country is currently in a weird state where the minority is controlling the majority. You could argue this has been done quite a few times in the past, Slavery being the most stark example in human history where a minority population directly controlled a majority population [Citation needed, but memory serves that the slave population outnumbered the free population in the US.] The unfortunate reality of modern capitalism is that you don’t get to the top through altruism. This also means that we cannot expect altruism from the minority leading the country, and facet of human life that requires altruism needs to be handled at the government level. You could argue that the government is currently run by pretty nasty hedonists as well but that is not necessarily so, capitalism (however) actually does seem to necessitate this kind of selfishness in its current free market variant.
We cannot have health care handled by business because the business has a mandate to control and abuse its staff. Perhaps not both but at least one or the other. Perhaps the latter is necessitated by the former but I’m not entirely certain. This court case should be a stark reminder that we cannot ever allow capitalism to handle the health and safety of the population. They will always cut corners and they will always subjugate their dependents. The control of money flow is a powerful one and the current business practice of consuming and destroying competition means that employees do not have the choice of where they can work.
Once the choice of employment is lost the freedom of the employer to subjugate their employees should be as well. Really it shouldn’t be there ever but the counter argument of “Just work elsewhere.” falls apart. The entire reason they have control of health care currently is to control employees, you want them tied to you in the most intimate of needs so that they fear leaving. This case reminds us that that desire to control only gets worse with time.
This court case raises the questions of just how much you can take away under the fallacious pretenses of religious liberties. As one reader commented:
Must an employer who is a Jehovah’s Witness offer health insurance that covers blood transfusions? Must an employer who is a Scientologist offer health insurance that covers psychiatric medications? Must I as an employer offer health insurance that covers some other treatment (Viagra?) that violates my personal religious tenets? Let’s substitute other analogous examples and see if the Hobby Lobby arguments hold up. I don’t think they do. – abbyarnold
When your employer gets to decide who lives or dies, well, its to nobody’s benefit beyond their own.
Edit: This raises a question actually. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that you don’t have to pay government mandated fees that may partially (or in full) pay for things you object to on moral grounds, are all those people who tax evade because of disagreements with the government suddenly vindicated? I know the answer is no, but I can’t see any reason why it is no.