3 ms·
Not really? The point I get from GP is that the way America is set up, corporations have a lot of say in (de facto) health care and employment policy. In most o
by paulgb 6y ago
Not really? The point I get from GP is that the way America is set up, corporations have a lot of say in (de facto) health care and employment policy. In most other countries, these things are decided democratically rather than though the market. We could have arguments all day on which is a better system, but it's hard not to admit that the American system makes corporations into more political actors.
- winston_smith 6y agoThey just listed off a standard set of "europe good, USA bad" talking points. The "everything is political" argument lets you tie any political issue you want to any company you want, so that you can pressure them into being more political about the issues you care about.
- lazyasciiart 6y agoSo do you feel that it is a politically neutral choice for an employer to decide that the health insurance they sponsor for employees cannot be used to cover an abortion?
- winston_smith 6y agoNobody's claiming perfect political neutrality. The claim is that it's bad for companies to get political in unnecessary ways. Inasmuch as Hobby Lobby decided to push their politics and religion on their employees via their healthcare package, then we shouldn't be surprised at the result.
- dane-pgp 6y ago> Hobby Lobby decided to push their politics and religion on their employees via their healthcare package And/or did the government decide to push their politics and religion on Hobby Lobby via their healthcare legislation?
- winston_smith 6y agoAbsolutely, because politics is what government is specifically for, unlike, say, toy stores and individual people doing their non-government jobs. (edit: not endorsing either the government's position, just saying that yes, government is exactly where we see politics being forced on things)
- dane-pgp 6y agoThen it's worth noting that it is easier for a person to change which employer they work for than a business owner to change which government creates laws that apply to their business. I accept, though, that corporations are artificial constructs that exist (ostensibly) to benefit humans, and therefore placing restrictions and duties on corporations is inherently preferable to placing them on humans themselves.