Hobby Lobby business practices

[Dubya61]

It's health insurance. Fixating on what people do with their insurance seems rather obsessive to me. We don't hear the same discussion about Medicare or Social Security. Or heck, even what people buy with their government checks that are paid for with taxes by corporations.

<sarcasm>I can't believe they would employ anyone that would even consider using contraception. *gasp*</sarcasm>

This type of coverage is already required in 28 states. Does Hobby Lobby not sell in those states or provide coverage? I'm not sure.

I'm just a little urked by them playing the drama-queen card. Mostly because once again, it reflects poorly on Oklahoma. If this type of coverage was so incredibly averse to Christians, why is it mandated in 28 states? I've not heard the screaming and gnashing of teeth. There is a reason we don't have 50 different versions of Medicare. Or 50 different versions of Social Security.

Isn't this just one of those cases where the federal government is normalizing a pretty common practice? 'What is good for the gander, is good for the goose kind of thing' (without getting into a states rights discussion).

I disagree with this correlation.
The two are not the same. We do not have the right to complain about how somebody spends their Social Security, welfare, WIC or Aid to Families (or whatever like that). The government pays that money to them and government has the right to dictate how they spend it. We pay taxes to the government and we have the right to complain about how it is spent.
But, the government doesn't have the right, the cojones, the money or the clout to deliver health insurance in the same way they deliver other entitlements. So, what do they do? They foist that burden to the employer -- and it's not right. It's not right to do that and then get all picky and persnickety about what it covers when you must know that this PPACA is only a band-aid. It's certainly NOT where we need to be if we choose to provide universal health care. There are still many not covered that PPACA doesn't address.
If you want to equate complaining about being forced to purchase insurance that you are morally opposed to with another situation, then let's compare it to this:
We have a responsibility to clothe our children. Let's say that the school my daughter attends decides to implement school uniforms. The government is now telling me how to spend my money on children's clothing. No big deal. No need to go high and right. What if the uniforms they decide on are morally reprehensible to me? What if it's skimpy skintight clothing from Victoria's Secret that I don't want my daughter to wear? What if for the sake of uniformity, they said all children had to wear pants and I was opposed to that? What if I'm a devout muslim and wanted my daughter's head to be covered but that wasn't determined to be OK in the name of uniformity? (After all, if we bend to this one religion, what's next Christian Scientists?!?!?! Who PRAY?!?!?!) Am I supposed to just suck it up and make my daughter wear this morally reprehensible uniform because to complain or try to make changes is like complaining about how someone spends their welfare check?
I disagree with the quoted correlation and I disagree that it's an embarrassment to Oklahoma.

Isn't it really simply about obeying the law? Hey I don't like funding US military bases in Germany or the incarceration of dope smokers but I'm pretty sure I can't line item those expenses out of my taxes without consequences. Hobby Lobby should be expected to obey the law the same as anybody else.

What if Hobby Lobby's practices predated this new-and-only-implemented-for-a-couple-of-days law? What if Hobby Lobby disagreed with this new-and-only-implemented-for-a-couple-of-days law? I would agree with your comment if the law was already on the books when Mr. Green went into business. He would have no right to complain about something that was already on the playing field when he brought his team to play, but he has every right to pursue a legal resolution to what he sees as an immoral law.

[mkjeeves]

And we're.STILL dancing around the wrong subject. HL should never be forced to provide ANY insurance to their employees. It's subverting the free (labor) market.

The Supreme Court already ruled on that issue.

[Dubya61]

The Supreme Court already ruled on that issue.

and I still disagree. Why not make our employers provide us other insurance, too? I can't believe that there are some out there without auto insurance, accident insurance, long term care insurance, etc. Yeah, making the employer as the go-to guy for insurance is a smart thing to do.

[onthestrip]

The school uniform argument doesnt hold much weight because a certain type school uniforms havent been declared essential to womens health by medical professionals like conraceptives have.

[Dubya61]

The school uniform argument doesnt hold much weight because a certain type school uniforms havent been declared essential to womens health by medical professionals like conraceptives have.

The school uniform argument is pertinent because, like the various styles of clothing mentioned, there are various methods of contraception. One of them is deemed morally reprensible to HL brass. Not all methods of contraception are deemed essential to womens health. No one is fighting the concept of contraception.

... and it's still dancing around the wrong issue. The gov't was wrong to declare that employers must provide health insurance to employees.

[Dubya61]

They have for a long time. Medicare/Medicade and retirement "insurance".

... but why stop there?

anyway, No, they haven't been in the business of being the go-to guy for insurance. They are paying taxes to the government who is the go-to guy for medicare/medicaid and social security.

[Dubya61]

Right. But that doesn't change the mandate. Company A, you must pay for your employee's retirement.
And I think that PPACA is a better model. Can you imagine if we changed Social Security to a contribution into an IRA? You'd have far more money when it came time to retire. Unemployment could be a subsidy provided to a company that provides you work while you look for another job or get more education. Then Unemployment isn't just a check you get but a salary. You instantly would become a productive member of society.
Just talking out loud but the point is where you see a major difference, I see a better approach. I prefer mandates over taxes. Auto insurance is a good example for me. I don't want to buy insurance from Uncle Sam. I want to buy it from USAA. I LOVE USAA. Not sure I'd LOVE Uncle Sam's Auto Protection and Coverage Policies Of America For Freedom.

1. Social Security was never intended to be a retirement option. Society has come to look upon it as such, but it was never intended as such. Company A has NEVER been mandated to pay for their employee’s retirement. Company A has been mandated to pay taxes that are used to fund an insurance scheme.
2. I agree with you that allowing the privatization of social security for willing participants would be a better option. Is that what you said? That’s what I read into it.
3. PPACA is in NO way a better model to do social security. There are too many gaps. Everybody is covered by social security. Only those who are employed by companies with 50 or more employees or are indigent are covered with health insurance thanks to PPACA.
4. Using the comparison of health insurance and auto insurance, would you be satisfied with your employer paying for your auto coverage, with whomever they choose, at the government mandated minimum coverage: liability only? Would you still love USAA if you only had liability coverage? What about the drivers out there that are self-employed or work for a small firm with 49 or fewer employees? They would slip through the cracks, wouldn’t they? But what if your employer thinks that our government’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is immoral and doesn't want anything to do with an insurance company that is so closely affiliated with the military? Should they have the right to NOT use USAA?
If we're going to force employers to pay for health insurance (and I don't think we should) shouldn't they have the option to provide something they agree with philosophically or increase your pay by the amount they aren't paying and you can go out and find your own? That's more along the lines of your SS/IRA correlation. I don't think that the PPACA is a better model at all. I posted on another thread that many of my colleagues have to buy into the company insurance starting a couple of days ago at a greater cost to them than they were able to secure insurance on their own, thanks to the implementation of PPACA. Why don’t they have the option to continue to purchase cheaper insurance that is comparable or better in coverage, just to avoid my employer paying a fine for full-time employees not covered in the employer-provided group plan?
To be clear, I like parts of PPACA, and like the direction it’s taking us, but there are parts that I vehemently disagree with.

[Dubya61]

It's not just that some reporter disagrees, it's that the science just isn't supporting that it affects eggs after fertilization, which is what the NYT article was about. They cite several sources, including an FDA representative who said the science is supporting that the pills don't affect an egg after fertilization, and a Mayo Clinic doctor who said the same thing. The WebMD article was first written in 2007, which is really pretty old as far as medical information goes, you try to use more recent studies and data when making medical decisions. Odds are that they, like the Mayo Clinic (which is eager to change it) is just waiting for the FDA to actually make an official change in wording. But since 2007, the National Library of Medicine (one of the most valued and well maintained database of medical information in the world) removed references that the pill affects fertilized eggs based on more up-to-date studies. Based on the evidence, it just doesn't appear that the classification of them as an abortion pill is accurate anymore.

Thanks for the info and cite. It appears I was wrong to argue that fact. I also saw in there that

Women ages 17 and older can buy Plan B One-Step and Next Choice at a pharmacy without a prescription or visit to the doctor. Younger girls need to contact a health care provider to get a prescription for these pills.

so I don't know why this is an issue at all. My insurance regularly does not pay for stuff I can buy cheaply over the counter. Is the government really going to force a company to pay a fine for not covering something you can get without a prescription? Is Hobby Lobby really going to the mats for something as available as aspirin?

[Dubya61]

There are a myriad of insurance policies companies are required by the government to purchase. I see this as related, not the same exactly. But related enough I hardly believe it has anything to do with "cojones" or clout.
Try opening up a business without the government telling you about 50 things you must do and buy. This isn't new territory. It just is being played as such because there is a strong and vocal faction of people who don't like the president and any policy he proposes.

I’ve never opened up a business, so I don’t know the answer, but …
What insurance policies would I be required to purchase if I were to open up a business?
Also, I never said that the government lacked the audacity or clout to tell businesses what to do. Rather, I said that the government lacked the audacity, right, money or clout to just go ahead and create universal health care the way they are pretending they are doing with the PPACA.
Finally, this IS new territory because it's essentially creating a new tax that takes a tool out of the employer's toolbox. The results of this new tax is a limited benefit masquerading around as universal health care. We would be better off to institute true universal health care, but it's something that the government is currently incapable of. PPACA is a step in the right direction, but it still misses the boat. Further, I'm not in favor of universal health care, but I would certainly prefer it to PPACA.

[Dubya61]

Look, if your daughter is asked to wear clothes that you don't want her to wear, that's fine. She's a minor and you have authority over her. There are plenty of people in America that don't send the kids to school for a variety or reasons. I was homeschooled most of my life. I can appreciate that viewpoint.
But arguing against something because you feel it is morally wrong comes with an inherent risk of being wrong under the law. Your morals are pretty much meaningless when held up against the light of the law.

Somehow, we miscommunicated on the example of a school uniform. In the context of your post, what are my options if I am morally opposed to the uniforms she would be required to wear? Something to the effect of, “Isn’t this just one of those cases where the school is simply normalizing what all the students wear?” If June and Honey Boo Boo don’t find it offensive, then why should I? I don't want to homeschool my kids as I believe that homeschool children miss out on a lot of social interaction and development. I don't want to move -- pack up my company and go to Mexico or India. I should have every right to fight it in court and that’s exactly what HL is doing.

[CaptDave]

Would this debate be any different had actual universal, government supplied healthcare been implemented instead of the ACA? This assumes there would be a payroll tax similar to social security to fund such a program. Would individuals and businesses be permitted to self-exempt themselves? What would the consequences be of that action? Would Hobby Lobby be able to deduct and send those funds from their employees' salary with a clear conscience with regard to the owner's religious beliefs if universal healthcare provided services they deemed against their beliefs? Isn't it really a question of semantics and the mechanism by which healthcare is funded?

[Dubya61]

Let me pretend that I'm Mr. Green.
That would be completely different. First, with the right information, I wouldn't oppose the Levonorgestrel medicine, given what I know now, but,
Second, I would be completely off base to protest my paying of taxes for a product that is the law of the land.
It would be just like paying FICA, Fed w/h, etc.
I would not have the government coopting me to do what I would see as the dirty work.

[mkjeeves]

I’ve never opened up a business, so I don’t know the answer, but …
What insurance policies would I be required to purchase if I were to open up a business?

Here's two examples specific to plumbing, mechanical and electrical businesses to satisfy the State of Oklahoma:

To activate your license, the following MUST be provided to the Construction Industries Board:
1. $5,000 corporate surety bond with ORIGINAL signatures, seals, and Power of Attorney attached;
2. $50,000 general liability insurance in the form of a “Certificate of General Liability” (See attached information).

Construction Industries Board - Bond and Insurance

[PennyQuilts]

The Supreme Court already ruled on that issue.

They ruled it was a legal tax. And taxes are intended to be imposed to raise revenue. That's all.

[PennyQuilts]

The school uniform argument doesnt hold much weight because a certain type school uniforms havent been declared essential to womens health by medical professionals like conraceptives have.

Do you draw any lines, whatsoever, for what the government should order? Why this and not condoms? Why this and not some other medical procedure or medication? If this is a "right," why isn't the government providing this?

Why is this so "essential" for full time employees but not for part timers? The mere fact that this only benefits full time employees but leaves part time employees out in the cold is all you need to know about whether this is actually an "essential" drug. This is just passing off on private industry the responsibility to provide services some beauracrat decided were "essential," notwithstanding that it is cheap and easy to get. The only people who benefit from this are people who have a full time job and could afford it, anyway without breaking the bank. This isn't about "essential" services - this is purely about ideology and the notion that if you can force someone to pay for something, go for it.

[PennyQuilts]

But arguing against something because you feel it is morally wrong comes with an inherent risk of being wrong under the law. Your
morals are pretty much meaningless when held up against the light of the law.

This, right here, is the heart of the matter and what is going to have to be decided by the Supreme Court or - more likely - Congress. This is NOT a simple question where the law always trumps. If it is couched in terms of freedom of religion/conscience, the government can't just pass a law and order people to violate their conscience. Civil disobedience has a long, honorable history in this country and it has always been respected because of the value this county has held for personal conscience. We make exceptions all the time for such matters - even the military. The left is trying its best to tie protected matters of conscience to church membership and if they manage to do that, god help us.

[PennyQuilts]

Would this debate be any different had actual universal, government supplied healthcare been implemented instead of the ACA? This assumes there would be a payroll tax similar to social security to fund such a program. Would individuals and businesses be permitted to self-exempt themselves? What would the consequences be of that action? Would Hobby Lobby be able to deduct and send those funds from their employees' salary with a clear conscience with regard to the owner's religious beliefs if universal healthcare provided services they deemed against their beliefs? Isn't it really a question of semantics and the mechanism by which healthcare is funded?

It would be completely different.

[Stew]

I wonder how long hobby lobby will cut off their nose to spite their face. Also I have to wonder why hobby lobby didn't seem to mind buying a good portion of their junk from china where forced abortions were the norm until here recently. I guess spending your money to indirectly fund abortions isn't an issue unless it's a convenient issue.

[mkjeeves]

They ruled it was a legal tax. And taxes are intended to be imposed to raise revenue. That's all.

Dubya said the real issue is that HL should not be required to buy insurance period. I said SCOTUS has already decided that issue and they have. The SCOTUS decided the law is constitutional to require one to buy insurance or pay the tax.

We all know that doesn't speak directly on HL's current stated reason they are fighting against compliance.

[Jim Kyle]

All the arguments that we should not violate a law that we believe to be morally wrong were, I had fondly hoped, discredited in the 1960s in such places as Selma -- or even our own Katz Drug on Main Street in OKC. Obviously, I was mistaken. Apparently it all depends on whose ideology is at stake!

[PennyQuilts]

We all know that doesn't speak directly on HL's current stated reason they are fighting against compliance.

Exactly. They aren't arguing against a tax and they aren't arguing against paying for insurance. This lawsuit is against being forced to violate their conscience.

[RadicalModerate]

I wonder how long hobby lobby will cut off their nose to spite their face. Also I have to wonder why hobby lobby didn't seem to mind buying a good portion of their junk from china where forced abortions were the norm until here recently. I guess spending your money to indirectly fund abortions isn't an issue unless it's a convenient issue.

Perhaps it was good that they cut off their nose so they didn't have to smell how bad that tyrannical fine stinks.
Oh! Wasn't it the "liberals" who were so intent on keeping the government out of the bedroom? I guess that doesn't apply to "unanticipated" consequences of certain uses of that area of the house.

(btw: good point about buying all that crap from China . . . hard to argue against the logical inconsistency there.)

[PennyQuilts]

Perhaps it was good that they cut off their nose so they didn't have to smell how bad that tyrannical fine stinks.
Oh! Wasn't it the "liberals" who were so intent on keeping the government out of the bedroom? I guess that doesn't apply to "unanticipated" consequences of certain uses of that area of the house.

(btw: good point about buying all that crap from China . . .)

This was NOT what we feminists had in mind back in the day...

This is just embarassing, as a woman. The neofems are such little girls. Grow up and buy your own cheap medication if your contraception fails. Women's rights were supposed to be asserting ourselves as people who didn't need to be coddled, shielded and controlled. I read this stuff and wonder if I am supposed to start wearing pink ribbons and pretend it is still the fifties - when daddy or hubby paid all the bills so I didn't have to worry my little head about them.

[kelroy55]

This was NOT what we feminists had in mind back in the day...

This is just embarassing, as a woman. The neofems are such little girls. Grow up and buy your own cheap medication if your contraception fails. Women's rights were supposed to be asserting ourselves as people who didn't need to be coddled, shielded and controlled. I read this stuff and wonder if I am supposed to start wearing pink ribbons and pretend it is still the fifties - when daddy or hubby paid all the bills so I didn't have to worry my little head about them.

I thought you weren’t employed so isn't hubby paying the bills now?

[MadMonk]

I wonder how long hobby lobby will cut off their nose to spite their face. Also I have to wonder why hobby lobby didn't seem to mind buying a good portion of their junk from china where forced abortions were the norm until here recently. I guess spending your money to indirectly fund abortions isn't an issue unless it's a convenient issue.

That's a poor argument. Just as we cannot specify exactly what our taxes go to, you cannot specify what the profits of a business go to (either local or foreign). And how do you know that the profits don't go to organizations that fight against those sorts of practices? As for the junk from China, try taking good look around your own home and see exactly what isn't made in china any more. Sadly, I'd wager a good amount of your own possessions are made there. But that's a whole different argument.