Hobby Lobby business practices

[Dubya61]

Easily said by someone who has decent health insurance.

Mandating that employers provide health insurance does nothing to fix the poor state of health care in the U.S. It only restricts employers (with 50 or more employees) from easily managing their employee workload, removes the ability to use health care insurance as an incentive to attract better employees, and causes those with 49 or less employees to question the move to hire more. The main problem with health care in the U.S. is that there are way too many hands in the pot and middlemen involved in the payment for health care (that along with the need for tort reform). Expanding the base of insured Americans does not address the main problem with health care costs -- it only hides the problem better.

[Stan Silliman]

Mandating that employers provide health insurance does nothing to fix the poor state of health care in the U.S. It only restricts employers (with 50 or more employees) from easily managing their employee workload, removes the ability to use health care insurance as an incentive to attract better employees, and causes those with 49 or less employees to question the move to hire more. The main problem with health care in the U.S. is that there are way too many hands in the pot and middlemen involved in the payment for health care (that along with the need for tort reform). Expanding the base of insured Americans does not address the main problem with health care costs -- it only hides the problem better.

Interesting viewpoint.
Why should some companies advantage themselves over others by using health care as a carrot?
I'm always for the level playing field especially when it comes to small business competing with the megas.
I'd like to see businesses removed from the health care insurance providing altogether.

[MadMonk]

LOL, really? Should they be forced to offer the same pay, vacation plan, and other bennies as well? Just eliminate all competition and have the state mandate what is to be offered. To each according to their need.

[mkjeeves]

Because there will always be the businesses who game the system at everyone's expense. My company provides insurance. Some of our direct competitors don't. Some of their uncovered employees will undoubtedly go to the emergency room for routine care and my company will pay for their use through higher rates on our coverage. Or they will have uncovered major medical issues resulting in bankruptcies or unpaid medical expenses that again, the rest of us pay for.

There's a responsibility that comes with using labor and part of that is to cover all associated costs of using that labor in running your business, not externalize them on to the government and other businesses. That's when leveling the playing field is required.

But none of that has anything to do with Hobby Lobby's fight. The horse has left the gate and there are not enough people who want to repeal the law get it repealed.

[Dubya61]

Interesting viewpoint.
Why should some companies advantage themselves over others by using health care as a carrot?
I'm always for the level playing field especially when it comes to small business competing with the megas.
I'd like to see businesses removed from the health care insurance providing altogether.

I agree with you Stan -- and I'm probably gonna get my "conservative" card revoked for saying, but Universal Health Care is a great idea. I just don't think the business should be involved in it. How does it happen? I don't know -- so clearly, I'm not part of the solution. Sorry. Without putting too much thought into it, I think it should be paid for with insurance like our car insurance, but Bunty would say I'm only leading to health care through bankruptcy (and he'd be right). Again, not part of the solution. Sorry.

Because there will always be the businesses who game the system at everyone's expense. My company provides insurance. Some of our direct competitors don't. Some of their uncovered employees will undoubtedly go to the emergency room for routine care and my company will pay for their use through higher rates on our coverage. Or they will have uncovered major medical issues resulting in bankruptcies or unpaid medical expenses that again, the rest of us pay for.
MadMonk satisfactorily (as far as I'm concerned) answered the first part of that question.

There's a responsibility that comes with using labor and part of that is to cover all associated costs of using that labor in running your business, not externalize them on to the government and other businesses. That's when leveling the playing field is required.

But none of that has anything to do with Hobby Lobby's fight. The horse has left the gate and there are not enough people who want to repeal the law get it repealed.

So, to make it absurd(er) what about day care? transportation to and from work? Make that business PAY (Pay, pay and pay again) for their use of the labor pool.
Or not. Leave businesses out of the health care insurance picture unless they want to offer it.

[mkjeeves]

So, to make it absurd(er) what about day care? transportation to and from work? Make that business PAY (Pay, pay and pay again) for their use of the labor pool.
Or not. Leave businesses out of the health care insurance picture unless they want to offer it.

Neither impact other business' or individuals' costs like they do with unpaid for healthcare.

[Dubya61]

Neither impact other business' or individuals' costs like they do with unpaid for healthcare.

So, the business should foot the costs because there are irresponsible people out there who decide that the cost of staying healthy is prohibitive?
I say, "No". There is a world of high costs out there regarding health care that should not be so. It is the absurd cost of a pre-packaged surgery pack from which the doctor will only use the sponge and throw away the rest to save on malpractice costs that make health so costly. If there needs to be a fix (and there does), it needs to be something that will address health care costs, not how we continue to support the absurdly large payments to / from insurance companies, lawyers and other third parties that should not even be involved in your health care. Businesses should NEVER have been made to foot the cost of your health care.

[mkjeeves]

So, the business should foot the costs because there are irresponsible people out there who decide that the cost of staying healthy is prohibitive?
I say, "No".

Should we give employees their gross pay and let them deal with paying the government(s)? Perhaps.

There is an argument to be made the most efficient use of our economic system is to have the employer be the middle man, versus the government, or each and every person individually handing their respective daily, weekly or monthly tax payments, like how employers do now with other taxes.

But long and short of it is when there existed the employer/employee relationships where the employer does not pay and the employees are given the latitude to further pass those costs onto others, we, the American people, decided it wasn't good and passed laws to stop it. That is a good thing. We can tweak it but it's here to stay.

[Dubya61]

Should we give employees their gross pay and let them deal with paying the government(s)? Perhaps.

There is an argument to be made the most efficient use of our economic system is to have the employer be the middle man, versus the government, or each and every person individually handing their respective daily, weekly or monthly tax payments, like how employers do now with other taxes.

But long and short of it is when there existed the employer/employee relationships where the employer does not pay and the employees are given the latitude to further pass those costs onto others, we, the American people, decided it wasn't good and passed laws to stop it. That is a good thing. We can tweak it but it's here to stay.

I am quite irritated with people saying "it's here to stay," as if it's a best practice that has existed for eons. PPACA doesn't even become fully implemented until 2014, with bits and pieces yet to be phased in.
Further, PPACA has LARGE gaps in providing for the full American populace. If you work for an employer that has 49 or fewer employees (or you have been specially "blessed" with an exemption from this law by currying the favor of the current executive team) and you live in a state that has decided to not implement state-run exchanges, then you STILL don't have access to health care unless you are indigent.
Further, "we, the American people," had NO direct say in PPACA. Our elected leaders did that "for" us. If you were to hold a single issue election today regarding PPACA (not one to elect our President with the only other options being Governor Romney or Senator McCain), I doubt that it would pass, especially with the average voter being smarter and more leery of D.C. than those that voted for it without knowing what was in it. Don't go saying the "we, the American people" voted for PPACA.

[Easy180]

I am quite irritated with people saying "it's here to stay," as if it's a best practice that has existed for eons. PPACA doesn't even become fully implemented until 2014, with bits and pieces yet to be phased in.
Further, PPACA has LARGE gaps in providing for the full American populace. If you work for an employer that has 49 or fewer employees (or you have been specially "blessed" with an exemption from this law by currying the favor of the current executive team) and you live in a state that has decided to not implement state-run exchanges, then you STILL don't have access to health care unless you are indigent.
Further, "we, the American people," had NO direct say in PPACA. Our elected leaders did that "for" us. If you were to hold a single issue election today regarding PPACA (not one to elect our President with the only other options being Governor Romney or Senator McCain), I doubt that it would pass, especially with the average voter being smarter and more leery of D.C. than those that voted for it without knowing what was in it. Don't go saying the "we, the American people" voted for PPACA.

Republicans would run scared if every major bill was voted on by the public

[Midtowner]

You didn't go there. Tell me you didn't.

Worker's comp covers job related illnesses/injuries, already. It has not been a problem and no one is claiming it is. The matters of conscience that have caused this hubbub aren't work related unless you had a really, really, really odd set of facts. HL already provided health insurance for people who got hurt or injured off the job (and WC for on the job). The left is doing its utmost to try to say this is about denying medical care when that just isn't what this is about. It is about mandating that companies violate matters of conscience. All the difference in the world.

And btw, the morning after pill really doesn't fit into a category of illness or injury, anyway, unless you are so ideologically motivated that you're willing to twist your brain into a pretzel to make it fit. At the time the medication is taken, there isn't any reason to think the embryo or the mama is sick or hurt absent something quite peculiar And for that matter, there wouldn't be any evidence that she was pregnant, at all - it is a back up plan in case she turns out to be. Last I checked, pregnancy is well within the range of a healthy condition for sexually active healthy females of a certain age. You have to come up with a reason apart from illness or injury for this medication to be needed and because of that, it is firmly outside the scope of typical health insurance packages unless you choose to include it.

The morning after pill is just a suped up BC pill. It either causes an unfertilized egg to be expelled before fertilization or prevents implantation by making the uterus inhospitable--the same stuff regular BC does.

Unless you are against all forms of BC, you have no reason to be against the morning after pill.

[Dubya61]

I’m about to recant my position on what Hobby Lobby is required to offer to its employees for health care insurance.
My employer offers several options of health care insurance that the employee can choose from. They cost the employee differing amounts, depending on what the employee selects. This is what Hobby Lobby needs to do. Offer the employee the choice. Hobby Lobby can stick with what it wants to offer the employee – what they currently provide, but they only need to offer another option that the employee is free to choose. There is no requirement that the employer actually fund the insurance – just that the employee’s cost cannot be more than 9.5% of their household income. Here’s my plan for Hobby Lobby to get out of this mess.
1. Contract compliant health care insurance with the cheapest possible company to offer to your employee. If it doesn’t fit your moral code and it’s not too expensive (and therefore is below the 9.5% threshold of at LEAST the employee’s income), then you’ve met all the provisions of the law without paying any money out of your pocket for medical procedures you find repugnant.
2. Continue to offer your current health insurance as an option to your employees. Make it cheaper to the employees, if you wish. If it’s better than the bare-minimum compliant option, then you still have an incentive to use to attract what you might deem to be a better employee.
I still contend that PPACA puts an unfair onus on the employer, but I have faith that some sleazy or smart insurance company will step forward and offer some bare-bones coverage for an incredibly cheap price that will meet the requirements of PPACA – and probably make a fortune off of it for people who simply want to avoid the fines for non-compliance.

[ljbab728]

A victory today for Hobby Lobby in court.

Federal court says Obamacare birth control mandate likely to be struck down - U.S. News

[onthestrip]

And a loss for employees.

And this is far from over. I have a feeling this could go to the scotus.

[Hawk405359]

I just don't think birth control is so prohibitively expensive that i needs to be included for free. Certain types are, but there are many cheap birth control options that should be within the budget of anyone who has a job.

[onthestrip]

I just don't think birth control is so prohibitively expensive that i needs to be included for free. Certain types are, but there are many cheap birth control options that should be within the budget of anyone who has a job.

Maybe but that's not the point. What's stopping some other employer to just say no to covering any other medicine in the name of their religion? Not to mention they are a for profit corporation. An individual or a non profit might have an argument but I disagree when it comes to corporations.

[ljbab728]

Maybe but that's not the point. What's stopping some other employer to just say no to covering any other medicine in the name of their religion? Not to mention they are a for profit corporation. An individual or a non profit might have an argument but I disagree when it comes to corporations.

Keep in mind that Hobby Lobby is not a corporation.

[MustangGT]

I hope that Hobby Lobby prevails and this is the first of many dominos to fall.

[mkjeeves]

Keep in mind that Hobby Lobby is not a corporation.

Hobby Lobby, Inc. is a corporation, thus the "Inc." in the name so it's unmistakable. Maybe you are trying to say they are not a publicly held corporation?

[bluedogok]

Wasn't the "morning after pill" made into an over-the-counter medicine instead of prescription recently? If so, how many other OTC meds are mandated to be covered by insurance, I can't think of many. If it is OTC (and cheap) then why is it even an issue now.

[ljbab728]

Hobby Lobby, Inc. is a corporation, thus the "Inc." in the name so it's unmistakable. Maybe you are trying to say they are not a publicly held corporation?

Exactly. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.

[Hawk405359]

Maybe but that's not the point. What's stopping some other employer to just say no to covering any other medicine in the name of their religion? Not to mention they are a for profit corporation. An individual or a non profit might have an argument but I disagree when it comes to corporations.

It really is the point though, if an item is cheap and easily available, we don't need insurance to be forced to cover it at the potential cost of the rates of all the other policy holders. I don't think cheap OTC items should be covered. Should the government be mandating free Tylenol or cough drops? Because that's the scale we're talking about, we're not talking insulin or cancer medications, we're talking something that allows you to practice safe sex. When you can buy a box of condoms for around 50 cents per condom or female birth control for around a dollar per application for certain types of female birth control, it's not something that I think that we need to be demanding is covered by insurance.

And just because they're a corporation doesn't mean that the government should have grounds to force hem to offer specific benefits packages to their employees, which is what they're doing.

[mkjeeves]

The issue about being incorporated comes down this way. A business corp is a distinct separate entity from the stockholders. It's all fiction but we have agreed to make the fiction legal. Hobby Lobby may be totally owned by the Green's but it isn't the Greens any more that two people are the same person. The entire reason for setting up a corp is to establish that fictional separation. So, what the Green's believe personally, (their religion) has no bearing whatsoever on the corporation.

Now we have owners who want to subscribe their personal beliefs onto the corp as if the fictional corporation has a soul, is a Christian, (or some such) worships God etc. That's hogwash, goes against the basic premise of incorporating and will be a huge mistake of never ending issues if the court goes down that path.


There may be other arguments against providing cheap over the counter meds but this one isn't one that needs standing.

[MadMonk]

Wasn't the "morning after pill" made into an over-the-counter medicine instead of prescription recently? If so, how many other OTC meds are mandated to be covered by insurance, I can't think of many. If it is OTC (and cheap) then why is it even an issue now.

That's what I thought as well. It would pretty much make this a non-issue.

[onthestrip]

It really is the point though, if an item is cheap and easily available, we don't need insurance to be forced to cover it at the potential cost of the rates of all the other policy holders. I don't think cheap OTC items should be covered. Should the government be mandating free Tylenol or cough drops? Because that's the scale we're talking about, we're not talking insulin or cancer medications, we're talking something that allows you to practice safe sex. When you can buy a box of condoms for around 50 cents per condom or female birth control for around a dollar per application for certain types of female birth control, it's not something that I think that we need to be demanding is covered by insurance.

And just because they're a corporation doesn't mean that the government should have grounds to force hem to offer specific benefits packages to their employees, which is what they're doing.

So just because you think..? You should probably use better arguments than "I think." Helps to back it up with solid reasoning, such as mkjeeves did.