Sign in to follow this  
nick

Hobby Lobby

Recommended Posts

He was supporting the article that stated if a woman has health insurance like this through her employer and she wants and IUD, she can go pay for it with her own money...when but a few months ago he argued that employer provided health insurance WAS an employees own money that they earned fair n square. That's hypocritical.

The whole thing is hypocritical anyway. HL isn't paying for an IUD (or an abortion) they're paying for an insurance policy. It's a huge difference and shouldn't have even have made it to the SCOTUS as far as I'm concerned anyway.

I hope this ruling helps get rid of employer provided insurance. It's ridiculous that a corporation ought to be able to barter lower rates for it's group of insured then the open market price anyway.

If that last bothers you, I suggest you refrain from buying anything in bulk to save a little money, or YOU would be the hypocrite. Same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what the insurance policy doesn't cover medically, yes one has to pay out of their own pocket either co-pay / the whole bill, whether through company or personal. yes employees pay part of their health insurance through companies they are employed by, for it is deducted from thier pay.

It depends on what policy they get, what it covers . Open price policies very expensive....cheaper to get by group.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just don't "disguise" it as protecting religious freedom. otherwise we'll have all kinds of loonies and cheaters coming out of the walls.

give it a fiscal basis, a practical basis, just not one based on your nebulous "morals". if you're a believer in creationism (which i'm not), erego a believer in the old testament, it was written during a time (long, long ago) when people were trying to go forth and multiply for a REASON. this a classic example of the "lemming syndrome".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they STILL cherry-pick over the parts they want to follow........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hypocritical to call others "moral" when some are pushing their "immoral" beliefs on others and think its ok.... But the fact that todays society worships Sodome and Gomorrah and their ways is the main problem. So rather than teaching people "morals" which is fact, what the bible is about, we let them have at it like bunny rabbits and not let them have any consequences for their actions other than STD's . Of course ,some would have others pay for that to disappear along with other transmitted diseases or drug addictions. In many ways the birth control pill is a blessing to the unborn so they don't have to suffer from birth defects or life long diseases like HIV from their stupid parents.

And Dondie, who is to say that circumcising does not change the sensation for a man, yet it is considered for "medical" reasoning. It too is a middle eastern practice originally done by Jews? Eunichs come to mind also...now we just call it transexual operations... Yet many have pushed to make sure this form of mutilation for a "group" is OK to be covered by insurance. Our government paid to have this done for a soldier just recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How "moral" is it to hate your neighbor for being different? How moral is it to sleep with whomever takes your fancy that day? How moral is it to see how much money or property you can sc*rew your neighbors for? How many times can you change marriage partners and still be moral? Is there a certain number for that? You certainly do NOT have the corner on the "morals" market, AD, just from what you spew here on the board, so get off your high horse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try living down here in the bible belt. Wear jeans or shorts, and you won't like them much either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So personal attacks again..... Wow! Some of you get your panties in a wad when someone does not agree with you. Yup, kinda dumb of me to get married three times isn't it? Happens when you can't produce offspring for them...but thats my problem , not yours. I'm not on a high horse about my life... I have to live with the choices I've made in the past and don't make anyone else do things they do not want to do..the ones that seem to be in a frenzie and ON A HIGH HORSE are the Liberals that want handouts and want everyone to be a collective..Handouts and beleifs that other people choose not to pay for.

Point of this whole debate is "CHOICE" . Some choose to kill , while other choose not to. The other point of this debate is to allow those that choose not to kill , is to not PAY for it for others. America was set up on choices and the LAWS of the land should not interfere with religious beliefs..Its why so many came over here to the USA in the first place... That is what separation of church and state is.

AD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hypocritical to call others "moral" when some are pushing their "immoral" beliefs on others and think its ok.... But the fact that todays society worships Sodome and Gomorrah and their ways is the main problem. So rather than teaching people "morals" which is fact, what the bible is about, we let them have at it like bunny rabbits and not let them have any consequences for their actions other than STD's .

And Dondie, who is to say that circumcising does not change the sensation for a man, yet it is considered for "medical" reasoning. It too is a middle eastern practice originally done by Jews? Eunichs come to mind also...now we just call it transexual operations... Yet many have pushed to make sure this form of mutilation for a "group" is OK to be covered by insurance. Our government paid to have this done for a soldier just recently.

if you have had a chance to skim over the Old Testament, it's all about sex, booze, abritrary killings, polygamy, incest, IMO unsuitable reading for any minor anywhere in the world religious or not. hardly "the moral high ground", which is the point. keep religion OUT of government. aren't you of the opinion that goverment meddles to much in our affairs anyway? and if you want to wave the bible around under other's noses, who is to say your neighbor can't do the same with the q'oran? both of you would get my door shut very firmly in front of your nose (and tome).

circumcision, while a hot debate topic in some circles is a long medical mile away from a sex change OP, and even further way from castration. what's interesting though, is that when the standard practice of circumcision came under scrutiny by children's rights groups in europe (it was deemed assault on a defenseless infant), islamists and jews stood shoulder to shoulder screaming bloody murder about their right to adhere to "religious beliefs and traditions". cherry picking at its finest!! and after the european court ruled that the practice could be continued, but only under the supervision of a medical doctor, they went right back to their usual habits, namely disagreeing with each other on just about everything. cherry picking done masterfully!!

Edited by nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All kinds of disturbing going on here. Ignoring the actual Hobby Lobby case, this THREAD is filled with nastiness and misinformation. Seems like there is a LOT of knee-jerk happening on both sides of this issue, and not a lot of vetted facts. Even articles from national news sources seem to be leaning really hard in one direction or the other. Clearly a very divisive issue.

The amount of vitriol being spewed around this case makes it really hard to find information sources that I find trustworthy and unbiased. I am disappointed in our news media.

On a personal note, to me, religious freedom should be applied to the individual. The Green family should not use those birth control methods that they do not agree with. It bothers me when they are given the power to decide what someone else should or should not use because of their beliefs. At that point, they are imposing their religious ideals on someone else, with no regard for that persons religious beliefs. The methods of birth control in question are legal, and it bothers me that a company is claiming a religion that impacts employees choices.

Religion to me is personal, and should be kept that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It bothers me when they are given the power to decide what someone else should or should not use because of their beliefs. At that point, they are imposing their religious ideals on someone else, with no regard for that persons religious beliefs.

Yes ma'am. That bothers the UNholy bejeezus outta me too. What EVER happened to freedom of religion in this country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion to me is personal, and should be kept that way.

and that is what this case was about. The FAMILY owned business was against purchasing 4 different abortion pills to be PAID for by the insurance that THEY provided for THEIR employees. FORCING them to provide this type of MEDICATION with the (Non)Affordable care Act.Thus GOVERNMENT was forcing a closely held family company to PROVIDE something that they did not support due to religious beliefs. So being that the GOVERNMENT IGNORED a prior law, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the justices had at least a guideline to go on. Being that the (Non) Affordable Care act FORCES people to Supply medications such as abortion pills, is an infringement on their religious freedoms of choice. PLUS the justices decided that this is also NOT THE ONLY WAY Holly Hobbys employees can obtain the abortion pills, the government supplies them just like they supply for women to hve abortions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Hobby Lobby.

RNS-HOBBY-LOBBY-SCOTUSupdated2.jpg

I don't wave the bible under anyones nose, I could care less if someone dances naked around a fire on a full moon. When it comes to the government meddling by making laws that cross the line, then the Supreme Court has to make that decision to set it straight. Others would see that noone has a right to worship as they choose. Religion should be kept in a closet. Think about it, Next they will be removing crosses from churches, the star of David from synagogue, taking the wash bowls from in front of Muslims Mosques, etc...because someone finds it offensive. They are already doing it at memorials and cemeteries.

AD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. They did NOT have to purchase pills. They only had to allow the insurance company THEY chose to handle the needs of the people it covered. HUGE difference. Any time they don't like the services provided by the insurance company THEY chose to do business with, they are free to choose another company more to their liking. They may NOT use their "religion" to tell others what they can do. "Religion" has NO place in law either, but just try to tell the christians that. They are far too bent on pushing their views into law the REST of us will be forced to live with.

And I don't dance naked, that would scare the neighbors, and I have NO intention of trying to force my beliefs on them. I'm not christian. I DO meditate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a nutshell (for me)

If someone wants to do 'insert whatever here' I really don't give a flying flip. But if they choose to do (something that I personally do not agree with whether for religious or simply moral reasons) they should not ask and expect me to pay for fixing it.

The people I work for CHOSE not to include full vision benefits in their health package. I'm guessing at least half if not more of their employees wear glasses or contact lenses. It was their right to do so. Regardless of why - it is their RIGHT to do so. Do I like it. NO.

Why is is different for HH?

I really can't see where it's any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people I work for CHOSE not to include full vision benefits in their health package. I'm guessing at least half if not more of their employees wear glasses or contact lenses. It was their right to do so. Regardless of why - it is their RIGHT to do so. Do I like it. NO.

I'm trying to come up with a decent comparison for this. What if this company did cover vision benefits, but only would cover corrective lenses via hard contacts. The owner is near-sighted, and wears hard contacts, as does his father and both his children. They don't like soft contacts, and find eye-glasses ugly. So, based on their personal preference (belief) you now have to either pay for your eyeglasses or soft contacts completely out of pocket... or you are covered, but having to deal with hard contacts only, which you personally find don't work as well for you, but are the only way to get a fairly spendy item covered.

They are making a personal choice on a subject with multiple alternatives, and making it so that it is an extra burden on you if their preference doesn't work for you. Offering glasses/soft lenses would not hurt them, or cost them more than hard contacts... it is just forcing you to choose a less desirable option simply due to their own personal preference.

Kinda of a crummy analogy, but best I could come up with using the material at hand. Companies as opposed to individuals makes a difference to me. A company is a legal entity... not a person (although apparently even THAT is up for debate based on OTHER recent rulings that just completely baffle me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, there is no science that I know of that supports the theories that IUD's cause an abortion. Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.

If you go down the list of things that ARE approved by Hobby Lobby, and consider failure rates, and other factors that a woman usually discusses with her doctor and partner, then you can maybe understand it's not just as easy as picking another method. I have an IUD, which was highly recommended by my doctor for some issues with other birth control that I was having. Works great for me. Was not cheap... it was $1200 if I remember correctly. I don't think my employer deserves to have any say in that conversation. And, speaking of conversation, the initial complaint said Hobby Lobby not only did not want to cover these things, but also any counselling about them! So, now they are infringing on my doctor's free speech as well.

And lastly, I've seen reports that Hobby Lobby's retirement funds have investments with the very companies that make these birth control items. So... it's ok to make money off of them, but they will not let their employees have the freedom to use them with their insurance.

I thought when a business incorporated it was to separate it from the individuals who owned it and offer them some protection. Seems to me you cannot have it both ways.

I will never do business with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Char said it best.. Her insurance plan does not cover blind or seeing impaired people. Many companies would like to see your teeth rot out also because they refuse to cover the astronomical cost of dental insurance... So does this make it a war on people born with vision problems or poor enamel? Both are highly more important to health of individuals than birth control, yet its ok with the government for this practice to continue. To me this is absolutely stupid..and sexist.

AD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if this company did cover vision benefits, but only would cover corrective lenses via hard contacts. The owner is near-sighted, and wears hard contacts, as does his father and both his children. They don't like soft contacts, and find eye-glasses ugly. So, based on their personal preference (belief) you now have to either pay for your eyeglasses or soft contacts completely out of pocket... or you are covered, but having to deal with hard contacts only, which you personally find don't work as well for you, but are the only way to get a fairly spendy item covered.

try dealing with the state, has to approve for glasses/eye surgery etc. like everything else. Only took four months for my daughter to get her glasses. yes even any type of Birth control has to approved by state. At one time didn't cover dental, my daughter had to have a lot of work done ,we paid out of our pocket.

State goes by cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a personal note, to me, religious freedom should be applied to the individual. The Green family should not use those birth control methods that they do not agree with. It bothers me when they are given the power to decide what someone else should or should not use because of their beliefs. At that point, they are imposing their religious ideals on someone else, with no regard for that persons religious beliefs. The methods of birth control in question are legal, and it bothers me that a company is claiming a religion that impacts employees choices.

HL is not saying you cannot use whatever form of BC you choose to use they are just saying they do not what to be involved in any way with something they are morally opposed to. It is their company that they built from the ground up they do have the right to choose what benefits they are willing to pay for. I do not see this as being a religious but rather one of personal freedoms.

If employees have a problem with how the company is being run they always have the option to leave and find employment elsewhere. The company is not forcing them to do anything or pushing their religion on anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HL is not saying you cannot use whatever form of BC you choose to use they are just saying they do not what to be involved in any way with something they are morally opposed to. It is their company that they built from the ground up they do have the right to choose what benefits they are willing to pay for. I do not see this as being a religious but rather one of personal freedoms.

Then they should choose an insurance company that doesn't cover things they object to. Otherwise it's pretty hypocritical of them, because they are STILL somewhat associated with their problem.

Edited by ozland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is is what I find sickening. If they really found this to go against their religion, then why invest in it?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

I think the implications of this case are truly horrifying.

I would rather see companies give individuals a stipend to use to purchase the insurance they prefer, than have companies dictate what is and is not ok.

And for those who say "find another job"... in this market? If someone is supporting their family, you want them to quit and get government assistance until they find something else?

And when hiring I can see some sticky issues as well. Yes, you always check the benefits package. However, I'm afraid if a candidate specifically asks about contraception, that now the employer will see what side of the fence she is on for the issue. They might find reason not to hire her because she's "not Christian enough for them." Also, a candidate asking about this issue can almost be seen as questioning what religion the "company" is... which has always been a HUGE no no in the hiring process.

I have had insurance companies in the past that only cover glasses, but not contacts, or plans that do not include dental. Usually this was because of the cost. What I find horrifying is the reason that these are not covered. Your religion is YOURS, not mine. And, there isn't even any science to back up their claims.

Bottom line- do we now ask what the companies religion is to determine the level of health care? JW- blood transfusions not covered. Scientologists- no mental health coverage, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is is what I find sickening. If they really found this to go against their religion, then why invest in it?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

I think the implications of this case are truly horrifying.

I would rather see companies give individuals a stipend to use to purchase the insurance they prefer, than have companies dictate what is and is not ok.

And for those who say "find another job"... in this market? If someone is supporting their family, you want them to quit and get government assistance until they find something else?

And when hiring I can see some sticky issues as well. Yes, you always check the benefits package. However, I'm afraid if a candidate specifically asks about contraception, that now the employer will see what side of the fence she is on for the issue. They might find reason not to hire her because she's "not Christian enough for them." Also, a candidate asking about this issue can almost be seen as questioning what religion the "company" is... which has always been a HUGE no no in the hiring process.

I have had insurance companies in the past that only cover glasses, but not contacts, or plans that do not include dental. Usually this was because of the cost. What I find horrifying is the reason that these are not covered. Your religion is YOURS, not mine. And, there isn't even any science to back up their claims.

Bottom line- do we now ask what the companies religion is to determine the level of health care? JW- blood transfusions not covered. Scientologists- no mental health coverage, etc.

What I find sickening is that you and other want to dictate to a privately held company what they must provide as a benefit. They should be able to provide what they want to provide and if a prospective employee finds that objectionable then look elsewhere, if the market is tough maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities.

Employers should not be mandated to provide health insurance at all and if they do they get to decide what level of coverage to provide.

How does your freedom to live a life style of your choice override the owners freedom to follow their moral compass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what just may be the most stunning example of hypocrisy in my lifetime, Mother Jones has uncovered numerous investments on the part of Hobby Lobby’s retirement fund in a wide variety of companies producing abortion and contraception related products.

How very..........christian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find sickening is that you and other want to dictate to a privately held company what they must provide as a benefit. They should be able to provide what they want to provide and if a prospective employee finds that objectionable then look elsewhere, if the market is tough maybe you need to re-evaluate your priorities.

Employers should not be mandated to provide health insurance at all and if they do they get to decide what level of coverage to provide.

How does your freedom to live a life style of your choice override the owners freedom to follow their moral compass?

If they are incorporated, they are no longer considered privately held.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that the push behind this was to cause more challenges for Obamacare. I'm not it's biggest fan either, honestly. And I would be even more sympathetic with HL if they had not been investing in the very things they claim to find so objectionable. How do you explain that?

It's easy, quite frankly, for you to say reevaluate your priorities. I love to hear that from men when so often all of the duty of contraception is put on us women. For most of us, controlling our reproductive status is a priority, whether we are trying to get pregnant, spacing out our children to our liking, or avoiding pregnancy all together. For some women, IUD's can be lifesaving if they have clotting issues, and cannot have hormonal birth control, and cannot risk getting pregnant. I guess their partners should be ok with being celibate... or getting a vasectomy. For other women an IUD can change their life because they no longer has a few days a month where they are suffering from debilitating periods. I'm not talking about a little bit of bloating and some cramps, I'm talking about not being able to leave the bathroom because there is so much bleeding.

Someone I worked with referred to using an IUD as a "lifestyle." :indifferent: Well, I guess it is... family size is a lifestyle choice I guess. But I think that those who are not in favor of birth control would be up in arms if another company, which strongly believes in reducing population growth, refused to cover pregnancy. I guess that is now their right too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or getting a vasectomy.

I'll vote for that! Cheaper in the long run than birth control, cheaper than a tubal as well, how about that? How about if no male can get insurance til he gets a vasectomy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or just cut out VIAGRA and vasectomies. let's see the P & L on that. oh, i forgot, those are benefits for MEN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this