Hobby Lobby business practices

[Dubya61]

DE, you're right. *I don't want my employer involved in my health care. *Honestly, neither does it.
Two years ago, it had no impact. *Way back then, if you will recall, health insurance was something called a benefit. *As a benefit, employers had another tool to attract good employees. *Now employers are required to provide health insurance that meets certain specifications. *It appears that it was the PPACA that got my employer involved as a middleman in my healthcare.
The healthcare specified by the insurance that my employer offers doesn't meet the standards that I want. *Know what I did? *I purchased better insurance from another source. *There are several others that I know of that do the same. *That is what people who don't like the stipulations of the insurance that HL would LIKE to provide should do: *seek out other insurance and purchase it.
Instead of this solution, President Obama and Representative Pelosi ramrodded through congress a new edict -- a one size fits all mandated level of care that apparently will be administered through insurance companies and government panels.. *Instead of taking a look at what makes medicine cost so much, they devised to take insurance to task. *Instead of looking at tort reform, they decided that insurance was the problem. *That's kind of like making employers subsidize the price of gasoline when a preponderance of Americans can't afford to drive their gas guzzler SUVs for a 50 mile daily commute. *There are probably other more logical solutions to attempt out there. *Sadly, we see problems with health care and think it's an insurance problem. *You ever see Planes, Trains, and Automobiles? *Remember the scene where Steve Martin and John Candy are proceeding down the wrong dude of the interstate and a fellow traveller (on the right side of the interstate) tries to tell them, "You're going the wrong way." *Apparently the wrong synapse fires off in John Candy's brain and asks, "How do the know where we're going?" *Some time ago, someone announced that medical costs were obscene and the wrong synapse fired off to detour that thought process off on the insurance tangent.
HL should be able to offer the insurance it wants to as s benefit to it's employees. *Americans should be able to get health care they need at a reasonable price. *Those two great concepts are only*tangentially related -- at least they were before the PPACA. * *Now, not much -- and health care STILL is obscenely expexsive.

[Double Edge]

DE, you're right. *I don't want my employer involved in my health care. *Honestly, neither does it.
Two years ago, it had no impact. *Way back then, if you will recall, health insurance was something called a benefit. *As a benefit, employers had another tool to attract good employees. *Now employers are required to provide health insurance that meets certain specifications. *It appears that it was the PPACA that got my employer involved as a middleman in my healthcare.
The healthcare specified by the insurance that my employer offers doesn't meet the standards that I want. *Know what I did? *I purchased better insurance from another source. *There are several others that I know of that do the same. *That is what people who don't like the stipulations of the insurance that HL would LIKE to provide should do: *seek out other insurance and purchase it.
Instead of this solution, President Obama and Representative Pelosi ramrodded through congress a new edict -- a one size fits all mandated level of care that apparently will be administered through insurance companies and government panels.. *Instead of taking a look at what makes medicine cost so much, they devised to take insurance to task. *Instead of looking at tort reform, they decided that insurance was the problem. *That's kind of like making employers subsidize the price of gasoline when a preponderance of Americans can't afford to drive their gas guzzler SUVs for a 50 mile daily commute. *There are probably other more logical solutions to attempt out there. *Sadly, we see problems with health care and think it's an insurance problem. *You ever see Planes, Trains, and Automobiles? *Remember the scene where Steve Martin and John Candy are proceeding down the wrong dude of the interstate and a fellow traveller (on the right side of the interstate) tries to tell them, "You're going the wrong way." *Apparently the wrong synapse fires off in John Candy's brain and asks, "How do the know where we're going?" *Some time ago, someone announced that medical costs were obscene and the wrong synapse fired off to detour that thought process off on the insurance tangent.
HL should be able to offer the insurance it wants to as s benefit to it's employees. *Americans should be able to get health care they need at a reasonable price. *Those two great concepts are only*tangentially related -- at least they were before the PPACA. * *Now, not much -- and health care STILL is obscenely expexsive.

Thanks for helping illustrate the failings of the old grossly inefficient healthcare policy by employer's carrot and whim. No thanks.

[TaoMaas]

I had supper with some old friends the other day and we all started comparing gall bladder surgery stories. One person in the group didn't have insurance at the time she needed her gall bladder out. She went to her usual doctor and the price was going to be $30,000 for the surgery. There was no way she could afford that kind of expense and wasn't quite sure what to do. A nurse friend of hers said, "Let me look around and see if I can't find a better price." She found a surgical center who agreed to do the same procedure for $5000. I have a brother-in-law who has a similar story. He needed to have a sty removed from his eyelid. His doctor wanted to put him in the hospital overnight. My brother-in-law refused and asked to have the removal done as an "in-office" procedure. His bill came to $3000. When he came into the doctor's office to pay, he asked, "How much do you want for this surgery if I pay cash...right now?" The woman at the desk said, "Let me check with our business manager." When she came back, she said, "$1000". My brother-in-law counted out the cash and was on his way. Now...I haven't quite decided what role insurance plays in driving up the cost of healthcare, but I do know that when you get insurance companies out of these business transactions, costs drop by 1/3 to 1/5 of the original amount.

[PennyQuilts]

I had supper with some old friends the other day and we all started comparing gall bladder surgery stories. One person in the group didn't have insurance at the time she needed her gall bladder out. She went to her usual doctor and the price was going to be $30,000 for the surgery. There was no way she could afford that kind of expense and wasn't quite sure what to do. A nurse friend of hers said, "Let me look around and see if I can't find a better price." She found a surgical center who agreed to do the same procedure for $5000. I have a brother-in-law who has a similar story. He needed to have a sty removed from his eyelid. His doctor wanted to put him in the hospital overnight. My brother-in-law refused and asked to have the removal done as an "in-office" procedure. His bill came to $3000. When he came into the doctor's office to pay, he asked, "How much do you want for this surgery if I pay cash...right now?" The woman at the desk said, "Let me check with our business manager." When she came back, she said, "$1000". My brother-in-law counted out the cash and was on his way. Now...I haven't quite decided what role insurance plays in driving up the cost of healthcare, but I do know that when you get insurance companies out of these business transactions, costs drop by 1/3 to 1/5 of the original amount.

I've had the same experience. We have a high deductible plan and when we haven't reached our deductible, they always slash - and I mean slash - the prices for visits from what they charge people with insurance. I never even have to ask. This is one of the big reasons I don't support Obamacare. It does nothing to lower health care costs. It just expands insurance and that actually keeps health care costs higher.

[Dubya61]

How so? I just think its hypocritical for a company to come out against birth control for its employees 'because it goes against there christian beliefs', while being entirely supplied with the products that they sell that are made in a country that has had a very well documented history of forced abortions by its government and corporations.*

Corporations have tremendous power over who they can choose as suppliers, and where they manufacture their goods. Just reference how walmart drove suppliers to move a once huge manufacturing economy here in the United States to China within the span of 10 years. We can also see the resurgence (i myself have seen it) within the last two years where i am beginning to find multiple items at walmart that are now made in America. The best part is...they are the same price as the Chinese made items were a few years ago.

So if you think hobby lobby with its 10 billion square feet of warehouse here in okc that has the hobby supply market dominated cant demand that there suppliers dont use slave labor that forces workers to get abortions. Well, then im wasting my time typing because you will be too incompetent to understand it anyway. Prunie.

Let's be clear. *Do not confuse me with Prunepicker. *If it was your intent to insult me, mission accomplished.

Is it hypocritical? *You bet, and I never said it wasn't. *Never. *The post I made out of which you quoted one word was an angry vent that I still stand behind. *Hobby Lobby is absolutely right to stand up and say this law is inconsistent with the owner's beliefs. *They are fully within their rights and in keeping with the spIrit of the constitution of our country when they challenge this new and not yet fully enacted law.
But that's not what you have a problem with, if I read your post correctly. *You seem to have a problem with the fact that HL can't reconcile their beliefs with this new law in the country they are established in but seemingly turn a blind eye to a practice inconsistent with their beliefs in effect in a foriegn country where you believe they purchase the bulk of their product. *Does that mean that they should just roll over and continue as is?if you're not going to be a saint, then go ahead and wallow in the moral muck? *I think that they should attempt the changes they can. *I know you said that they should attempt to change that, too, but they might be. *Even if they're not, we make moral choices every day and continue have the freedom to be vocal and active in some areas while silent and passive in others. *There's a person I know on this board who is passionate about the environment and other issues. *I'll bet that he is actively working to bring about change. *Should that person be silenced until he stops using a gasoline-powered car, ceases to consume food cooked with gas and generates all his required electricity with renewable resources? *I hope not. *I value his information and perspective. *There's a person I know on this board who is passionate about New Urbanism and other issues. *I'll bet that he is actively working to bring snout change. *Should he be silenced until he sells his home in the suburbs at any cost? *I hope not. *I value his information and perspective, as well. *You appear to be passionate about working and living conditions for the Chinese laborer. *Do you use a Lexmark printer or copier? *Do you own *any sports shoes? *An iPhone? *If you do, does that mean that you have no voice in exacting a change? *I hope not. I'm sure you also have a valuable perspective and information to share.
Is it hypocritical of HL to try to change one thing while not appearing as active on another issue? *Yes, but we all harbor a little hypocrisy in our lives, don't we?

Oh, and now for the snarky part. *Walmart is good? and is mostly stocking American-made products, now? *I'd be very hesitant to trot Walmart out as a good corporate citizen with regard to their import record or method of coercion of suppliers to fit their marketing models.

[Dubya61]

Thanks for helping illustrate the failings of the old grossly inefficient healthcare policy by employer's carrot and whim. No thanks.

and thanks to you, for helping to illustrate that healthcare policy is inextricably linked fallatiously to employer-provided insurance.

I see many people relate health insurance to auto insurance stating that auto insurance us mandatory and so should health insurance, and it's a shame that there are STILL many uninsured motorists on the road. *Using that same logic, we should make employers provide mandatory auto insurance, and establish a national level of care or service. *It should include well care, too, to ensure that all the cars on the road are road-worthy.

On the other hand, with such high unemployment and under employment, linking such social services to employers might not be such a good idea.

On the other hand, making my boss responsible for my healthcare and the maintenance and care of my vehicle seems like we're not allowing for any personable responsibility except at the mean, greedy corporate level.

Yes, thank YOU, for helping to illustrate how yet another national synapse failed to fire while the wrong one ran amuck.

[Dubya61]

We have decided as a society that our healthcare system will be driven by employer provided plans preretirement.

In my opinion, that was not a wise move. We have now taken insurance to task and not healthcare. Should my employer also be responsible for my other insurance needs? Homeowner's? Renter's? Auto? Travel? Professional liability? Now my employer is absolving me of any and all personal responsibility? It would be like an employer version of a Nanny state, eh?

Why not try to fix the real problem, and not some parasitic symptom?

[Dubya61]

My neighbor was not getting hormone treatment from a doctor. When a woman is pregnant, hormone production changes in her body. These changes in her resulted in explosive growth of the tumor in her head. In context, this was a response to your question about employees making 'elective' decisions that the employer may have to pay for, with my point being there is not always a cut and dried outcome to what one might 'elect,' be it the employer or the employee making those elections. In the case of my neighbor, the outcome of her 'electing' pregnancy over birth control included massive medical bills, loss of a husband, near death, and loss of some of her physical and mental capacity. A healthy part of the medical bills were footed by her employer furnished insurance.

The other instances of well care I mentioned are elective too.

The horse is out of the gate and we have laws for minimum standards of healthcare for citizens. The employer should not be the person deciding what these standards are and especially not when the decisions are based on the religious views of the company.

i still dont understand, by the way, why you included that anecdote. What would PPACA have prevented from happening in that story?

[BlackmoreRulz]

In my opinion, that was not a wise move. We have now taken insurance to task and not healthcare. Should my employer also be responsible for my other insurance needs? Homeowner's? Renter's? Auto? Travel? Professional liability? Now my employer is absolving me of any and all personal responsibility? It would be like an employer version of a Nanny state, eh?

Why not try to fix the real problem, and not some parasitic symptom?

Didn't they used to call that slavery?

[Double Edge]

Some employers put themselves in the business of providing insurance to their employees. When it ceases to be beneficial to them to do that they can opt out and just pay their taxes.

A couple of facts on those lines:

The percentage covered by employment-based health insurance in 2011 was not statistically different from 2010, at 55.1 percent.

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011 - Income & Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau

CBO and JCT’s Current Estimates of the Effects of the ACA on Employment-Based Health Insurance Coverage

CBO and JCT now estimate that, because of the ACA, about 3 million to
5 million fewer people, on net, will obtain coverage through their employer each
year from 2019 through 2022 than would have been the case under prior law.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c...nsurance_2.pdf

[Dubya61]

Some employers put themselves in the business of providing insurance to their employees. When it ceases to be beneficial to them to do that they can opt out and just pay their taxes.

A couple of facts on those lines:

The percentage covered by employment-based health insurance in 2011 was not statistically different from 2010, at 55.1 percent.

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011 - Income & Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau

CBO and JCT’s Current Estimates of the Effects of the ACA on Employment-Based Health Insurance Coverage

CBO and JCT now estimate that, because of the ACA, about 3 million to
5 million fewer people, on net, will obtain coverage through their employer each
year from 2019 through 2022 than would have been the case under prior law.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c...nsurance_2.pdf

Your facts only illustrate that PPACA broadens the revenue base for insurance companies, allows more Americans to access health care with the burden of payment being put on the employers and the state if no employer exists. *Oh, and free birth control for all (to include Sandra Fluke and your neighbor), if your earlier posts are right. *How birth control is now well care is a mystery to me. *Any hoo: *it appears that PPACA does nothing to address profane health care costs -- it just makes sure that more are insured so that the insurance companies can pay the cost. *The insurance companies are out to make a profit, btw, and will pass the added costs on to those paying the premium: *you, me, our employers, and the state for the 8.3 percent unemployed.

I fully understand that "Some employers put themselves in the business of providing insurance to their employees. When it ceases to be beneficial to them to do that they can opt out and just pay their taxes.". Some employers also provide other benefits with the intent of luring better employees (parking spaces, keys to a nicer bathroom, commuter rail passes, child day care,free lunch -- the list can go on and on!). *Is that now the new standard and did they "put themselves in that business?" *Will we see legislation mandating those new "rights" in a few years? *I can see it now: *"I want my MTV, free birth control and free child day care!"
I want it all and I want it now (but at no noticable out of pocket costs to me).

[mugofbeer]

No employer is required to provide health care nor were they ever. They provided it as a benefit to lure employees and to help ensure their employees were healthy and would work more days during the year rather than being sick. All Obamacare is going to do is to incent employers to drop any health care benefit except for the highly compensated employees or industries that are highly competative who don't want to use the same system as the "common people" now. Even today, there are more wealthy who are simply opting to pay cash or use boutique medical groups and bypassing insurance entirely. These are the people I work with and I am hearing them say more and more they are considering pay-in-advance and pay-as-you-go health plans being offered to the wealthy.

[mugofbeer]

How so? I just think its hypocritical for a company to come out against birth control for its employees 'because it goes against there christian beliefs', while being entirely supplied with the products that they sell that are made in a country that has had a very well documented history of forced abortions by its government and corporations.

Corporations have tremendous power over who they can choose as suppliers, and where they manufacture their goods. Just reference how walmart drove suppliers to move a once huge manufacturing economy here in the United States to China within the span of 10 years. We can also see the resurgence (i myself have seen it) within the last two years where i am beginning to find multiple items at walmart that are now made in America. The best part is...they are the same price as the Chinese made items were a few years ago.

So if you think hobby lobby with its 10 billion square feet of warehouse here in okc that has the hobby supply market dominated cant demand that there suppliers dont use slave labor that forces workers to get abortions. Well, then im wasting my time typing because you will be too incompetent to understand it anyway. Prunie.

The veracity of the comments against "cheap, Chinese-made plastics" is starting to sounds more like veracity against Chinese people. Chinese people and CHinese government are two totally different things. HL is in a competative business and must compete against the Wal Marts, the Target's and the Michael's of the world - not to mention foreign retail stores we are likely not familiar with - all of whom also buy cheap, Chinese-made plastic goods. Let's not forget that our retail stores must compete in a world market-place.

Your assertion that HL has tremendous ability to choose it's suppliers is only partially correct. It could easily choose some American supplier to make all of those plastic goods - albeit at 5-times the cost which would require HL to sell those goods and far higher prices than they can now. This would result in HL going out of business. It chooses the Chinese or Hatian or Malaysian suppliers because it has to to compete.

Would you prefer HL not exist and instead we have a chain of Chinese semi-state owned hobby stores that sell cheap, Chinese-made plastic products who might have absolutely no concern whatsoever about employee health care concerns? We had auto-makers that were unionized by strong and demanding unions and had, at the same time, inept management that did not properly prepare the firms to operate in a world economy. This combination of ineptness/unrealistic demands opened the door for Japanese and Korean auto makers who have nearly killed them off. It is only a few years away that we will have cheap, Chinese-made auto's being sold in this country by semi-State owned Chinese automakers, cheap, Chinese owned airliners competing against Boeing, etc, etc.

HL buys cheap, Chinese-made plastic from Chinese manufacturers because Americans buy them and it has to to sell them to survive and compete against the other stores. HL doesn't want to get involved in the health care quagmire any more than any of you want them to be there, but it is a privately owned company, employs tens-of-thousands of Americans and provides them with health care insurance. It indirectly employs what are likely thousands of Chinese common people who would otherwise be toiling in fields or selling noodles from food carts who make all of those cheap, Chinese-made plastic goods - and who really couldn't give a **** if their government provides or supports abortions.

HL could simply drop all forms of health care insurance for their employees and very well may make the hard decision to do so if they are forced by the government to violate what the Greens view as an immoral and forced violation of their most basic principles - not to kill fellow human beings. Ironic that if/when Obamacare goes into full effect both that "evil" government in China making all of that cheap, Chinese-made plastic goods will support abortions while our government will force all business who provide a "benefit" to their employees to pay for abortions - like it or not. Sound like the economic models are becoming more and more similar...........

[Easy180]

They could drop health care yes but their employees would in turn drop them

[mugofbeer]

They could drop health care yes but their employees would in turn drop them

And work where? Another big box store who sells cheap, Chinese-made merchendise? Wal Mart, the bain of the left, doesn't have health care benefits yet has no problem attracting employees. Better to let HL provide 98% of the desired health care benefits that to not provide them at all.

[metro]

I haven't been in a Hobby Lobby or a Mardel's more than half a dozen times in the last ten years but in order to offset the negative effects of The Big Boycott (see above) I'm going by a Mardel's this afternoon to pick up a 4-DVD set of "Thou Shalt Laugh" . . . I might stop by a Hobby Lobby to pick up some 8-to-an-inch graph paper and then swing by Chik-fil-A for a sandwich.

I wonder if Mardel's might have a book with a commentary on the Constitution that shows where the Federal Government has the right to cram birth-control down a business owner's throat . . . Or demand that they open on Sundays.

I shudder to think of the effects of The Big Boycott on the pay scale of the innocent employees who are the real victims here. Say! Do you think there is a market here for condoms with a "religious" theme?

Post of the Month!

[RadicalModerate]

I read that Home Depot closed it's six or seven stores in China. Do you suppose that the problem was that we were shipping them American-Made goods and the price was just too high compared to domestic products?

[BoulderSooner]

They could drop health care yes but their employees would in turn drop them

where else can they find min wage work ... at 13 bucks an hour??

[Easy180]

where else can they find min wage work ... at 13 bucks an hour??

If they factored in having to pay for health insurance on the free market?...Everywhere

[Snowman]

If they factored in having to pay for health insurance on the free market?...Everywhere

What percentage of minimum wage jobs to this point have been paying for health insurance?

[Easy180]

What percentage of minimum wage jobs to this point have been paying for health insurance?

Good point...Guess I should tweak my "everywhere" a little

[bluedogok]

They could drop health care yes but their employees would in turn drop them

Many small to medium sized companies are already dropping health insurance, even in professional companies. Some provide a stipend for people to purchase insurance, others do not. This is just another adjustment for what is a horrible period for architecture/engineering firms when the majority of firms are competing for smaller fees with fewer people. Those that are thinking Obamacare is going to morph into a Canadian/European system are in for a rude awakening, as long as the insurance companies are involved it will never happen. After the full effect goes into place I would think the majority of companies will choose to pay the fine or provide some money as a stipend to buy from the state exchanges, most will never have (single) coverage fully paid for like I had even as recent as 5 years ago. We all know most companies will not qualify for waivers because they haven't bought off legislators like the unions and some large corporations. Tho

The insurance provided by firm that I worked at in Austin had changed greatly in the 4 years that I was there, before I left it was pretty much catastrophic care coverage only to keep our premiums (both employee and company contribution) about the same. One of the reasons why their coverage was so much was so many younger female interior designers of child bearing age in our Indianapolis office, that skewed the premiums way up. We had a total of 50 employees, not near enough to spread out costs when the majority of the staff is late 20's to early 30's females.

[PennyQuilts]

One of the reasons why their coverage was so much was so many younger female interior designers of child bearing age in our Indianapolis office, that skewed the premiums way up. We had a total of 50 employees, not near enough to spread out costs when the majority of the staff is late 20's to early 30's females.

At the convention, the democrats insisted that charging women a higher premium amounts to making being a woman a "pre-existing condition" and think doing so is discrimination and evidence of the war on women.

[bluedogok]

At the convention, the democrats insisted that charging women a higher premium amounts to making being a woman a "pre-existing condition" and think doing so is discrimination and evidence of the war on women.

In a "group plan" women don't necessarily pay more, everyone pays more to cover them and their dependents. That was why our coverages dwindled and deductibles shot up, there were 4 children born in the Indy office in one year and one of the children spent an extended period in the neo-natal ICU and had continuing problems. The insurance person basically said that complications from birth (for both the mother and child) are what drive up the costs. This isn't anything new, when I worked at TAP in 1993 they dropped maternity insurance because of the cost and one of the principals wife was pregnant at the time. It was cost prohibitive, at the time there were only two women there of "child bearing age".

My wife's insurance was pretty expensive at her old agency in Austin. A small office (10) of mostly women and quite a few persons with disabilities with many pre-existing conditions. They had coverage but it wasn't cheap, in future years most companies will choose not to offer coverage. A friend in Austin (who grew up in OKC) has faced this with his company dropping employee healthcare last year because his family premium was going to be more than $20,000 this year on top of employer contribution. Again, a company with 15 or so employees although his company is mostly middle aged men.

[WilliamTell]

-Let's be clear. *Do not confuse me with Prunepicker. *If it was your intent to insult me, mission accomplished.

-*Hobby Lobby is absolutely right to stand up and say this law is inconsistent with the owner's beliefs. *They are fully within their rights and in keeping with the spIrit of the constitution of our country when they challenge this new and not yet fully enacted law.
But that's not what you have a problem with, if I read your post correctly. *You seem to have a problem with the fact that HL can't reconcile their beliefs with this new law in the country they are established in but seemingly turn a blind eye to a practice inconsistent with their beliefs in effect in a foriegn country where you believe they purchase the bulk of their product.

-*Does that mean that they should just roll over and continue as is?if you're not going to be a saint, then go ahead and wallow in the moral muck?

-Sorry about that one

-Exactly - it seems like they stand up for their religious beliefs when its convenient and cost effective for them and they turn a blind eye when it isnt. Hobby Lobby's entire business model is based on buying cheap chinese crap (which we know is built in slave conditions with a LONG history of abuse and forced abortions) and then reselling it to Americans at a higher price. I watched 'Walmarts, the high cost of low price' the other day and the average toy was purchased for something like $0.07 in China and resold for $15.88 here in America. I'm sure Hobby Lobbys business model isnt far off of that number, so if they cant support their christian ideals and bring christian like working conditions to their workers on $15.81 margin per toy then that's b.s. Maybe they should ask themselves, WWJD.

But now they have a big moral objection to paying a few cents for there American workers to have access to birth control? come on!?!