Hobby Lobby business practices

[Wambo36]

The same principal applies, no? People tend to know what their health coverage does or does not cover, and any major restrictions are going to be known well enough that people are going to take it into account when taking the job. While, true, you don't tend to plan exactly for your child's skin graft surgery, you do take what sorts of procedures you can't get under a health plan into account.

To use your previous example, what if, in the next election, congress and the president were all Christian Scientists. Would you want them to be able to pass a law that says no health coverage whatsoever? Because that's sort of what is going on here, the federal government is mandating what employee benefits cover. Yes, that'd run foul of the Constitution, but I think this really pushes the limits as is, especially considering that a lot of birth control options aren't prohibitively expensive.

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that the government is preventing an employer from forcing their employees to live according to the employer's religious values.

[PennyQuilts]

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that the government is preventing an employer from forcing their employees to live according to the employer's religious values.

Since when is having to pay for your own cheap medication that is easy to get "forcing" someone to live according to their employer's religious values? Do you believe HL and other employers should be forced to provide condoms for its employees? If not, why not?

[Hawk405359]

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that the government is preventing an employer from forcing their employees to live according to the employer's religious values.

Saying "we're not going to cover this" isn't saying "you have to be our religion to work here" anymore than saying "You can't force kids to pray in school" is saying "Kids are not allowed to pray in school." It's just saying there are certain things that they will not cover, and if you don't like that, you don't have to work there.

No one is forced to work for a particular company, and if people just demand that cheap contraceptives are covered by insurance, they should certainly have the option to get insurance themselves that would provide it, but that doesn't mean that the company should be forced to provide it.

[RadicalModerate]

Saying "we're not going to cover this" isn't saying "you have to be our religion to work here" anymore than saying "You can't force kids to pray in school" is saying "Kids are not allowed to pray in school." It's just saying there are certain things that they will not cover, and if you don't like that, you don't have to work there.

No one is forced to work for a particular company, and if people just demand that cheap contraceptives are covered by insurance, they should certainly have the option to get insurance themselves that would provide it, but that doesn't mean that the company should be forced to provide it.

Exactly.
(except, of course for the fact that all of us are forced to work for The Federal Government for at least 3 or 4 months a year . . . which is OK . . . especially compared to what is probably on down the road . . .)

( . . . "i hear him say . . . oof . . . da . . . oof . . . da . . . dat's de' the sound of de man . . . wukkin' on de' chain ga--a--ang" . . .---that was Swebonics btw, for the peace of mind of the easily offended. doncha know. ya' shure, yew betcha. =)

[mugofbeer]

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that the government is preventing an employer from forcing their employees to live according to the employer's religious values.

WRONG! No one is preventing any employee of his company from buyng truckloads of any sort of contraceptive they want. They simply have to buy that one drug themselves. Do you, honestly, live your life as dictated by your employer's health care plan??

[kelroy55]

WRONG! No one is preventing any employee of his company from buyng truckloads of any sort of contraceptive they want. They simply have to buy that one drug themselves. Do you, honestly, live your life as dictated by your employer's health care plan??

Would you feel the same if it was for diabetes, or high blood pressure, etc....

[RadicalModerate]

Would you feel the same if it was for diabetes, or high blood pressure, etc....

I call "non-sequitir"! (regarding birth control, rhetoric [101])
(or should that be: "shennanigans"?)

Frankly, my blood pressure went down each of the one or two times I walked into a Hobby Lobby or Mardels.
I think--excuse me: I feel--that they have pretty good business practices.

[Dubya61]

Would you feel the same if it was for diabetes, or high blood pressure, etc....

This discussion goes round and round all the wrong items. No, I don't want my employer involved in my health care, whatsoever. I don't want them to be forced to provide me any insurance, either. If they choose to do so as a sort of incentive to attract the right employees, they can. Google can offer free lunch to attract the right employees. Other employeers can offer free transit cards to attract the right employees. or day care ... whatever, but that doesn't change that they shouldn't be forced to do any of that under the auspices of making the world a better place. If the government wants to force insurance down all our throats, then they should do it rather than coopt the employer. This isn't like child labor -- don't equate the two. The new law that some of you think we all should just bow down to and obey isn't right. Does HL need to just shut up and take it, rather than questioning the legality of this new law? No and it is NO embarrasment to Oklahoma that some corporation doesn't see the law as fair. If I were Mr. Green, I would lower everybody's hours to less than full time and then continue to offer the same benefits that I wanted to (to the new part-timers who might be paid more to make up for the lost hours) and avoid the fee. The government should never have mandated that employers provide insurance.

[PennyQuilts]

Would you feel the same if it was for diabetes, or high blood pressure, etc....

Like many people, I've got a high deductible policy which means I pay out of pocket until I hit about $3,500.00 (next to never happens). I take bp medication for migraines and it is about 10.00 a month - insurance doesn't pay for that or my synthroid ($4.00 a month - OMG!). No biggie. The morning after pill - like these meds - simply isn't a high priced, hard to get item and I would be embarassed to try to say they were controlling my health care if they didn't violate their spiritual beliefs to pay for it. Seriously, as a tolerant member of society, I am willing to bend a little to pay for my own cheap stuff, particularly if it means other people don't have to do something they think is wrong.

[Hawk405359]

Would you feel the same if it was for diabetes, or high blood pressure, etc....

Would you feel that the government should be able to order companies to stop covering certain conditions or patients?

It's not a question of what the government should make them cover, but whether the government should have the right to control the health benefits of private corporations. The level of coverage should be up to the provider.

And as has been said, Plan B pills just aren't prohibitively expensive, especially if they're being used as an emergency contraceptive and not long-term birth control. I would never file an insurance claim for a $20 pharmacy purchase.

[RadicalModerate]

Perhaps David Green should just do the John Galt thing: Pack up all his toys and go home . . . and/or move the human-based operation to Mexico or India. Online sales are fairly popular without all of the government interferrence in day-to-day operations.

[Wambo36]

Perhaps David Green should just do the John Galt thing: Pack up all his toys and go home . . . and/or move the human-based operation to Mexico or India. Online sales are fairly popular without all of the government interferrence in day-to-day operations.

He would certainly be closer to his manufacturing base.

[PennyQuilts]

He would certainly be closer to his manufacturing base.

HL pays higher than most stores of this type, voluntarily. I wouldn't blame them for leaving but they won't do it over money - it would be because of conscience. What a shame that over something this idiotic, the government is willing to cause this much chaos.

[Easy180]

HL pays higher than most stores of this type, voluntarily. I wouldn't blame them for leaving but they won't do it over money - it would be because of conscience. What a shame that over something this idiotic, the government is willing to cause this much chaos.

Yeah there are so many businesses raising a fuss over this

[RadicalModerate]

He would certainly be closer to his manufacturing base.

True That!
(and he wouldn't have to be so concerned with shall-we-say . . . overly "sensitive" employees . . .? . . . or "one-size fits all" health care regulations from the Federal Prescription Compliance Gestapo =)

[bluedogok]

I worked at Horn Seed, and the Horn's were Christian Science Church members. They offered insurance for those employees after a year of employment, most of us youngsters didn't last more than a year there and were let go because of "seasonal declines", I think it had more to due with insurance expenses and that was 1985. I don't see the Green's trying to "force their beliefs on their employees", I see them as objecting to certain forms of birth control, not all birth control. I have known people who worked there that were on the pill on HL insurance. I still contend that if you object to Christianity so much to make an issue of it and you go to work at HL, you created your own contentious situation and are free to seek work elsewhere. HL isn't the draft era Army, you don't have to work there.

HL also has some manufacturing in OKC, not all of those buildings are warehouses. I just don't see why some forms of already inexpensive birth control should be mandated to be covered but lobbyists/special interests got it included in the bill to be read after you pass it.

[adaniel]

Its easy to say "those folks should just work somewhere else," but that glosses over some pretty serious legal ramifications should Hobby Lobby get its way.

I am reminded of an old boss when I was still in college who was a total libertarian wacko. She believe most modern day medicine was mind control for the federal government. She frequently expressed her personal opinion towards workers who would take medication with their lunch. She preached oftentimes about why people didn't see the light in her messed up argument. It was nice to be able to get my Z-pack (covered partially by my insurance, which I probably wouldn't have been able to get since I was a broke college student) without worrying about how her views would affect me.

Mr. Green says that the Plan B pill causes abortion yet there isn't one reputable medical association that says that. Heck, the simple fact that lots of people have gotten pregnant despite taking it puts that theory to pasture. Yet he and his legal team suggests that his beliefs trump any sort of science or material fact, the kind that are needed in a court of law.

Should the feds grant my old boss an exemption? Should we grant companies who are guided by Jehova's Witnesses from covering any procedures involving blood transfusions? Because if you grant Hobby Lobby an exemption, one that is not based in any material fact, you have to grant them to all. That's the legal precedent in this. Its also why the Supreme Court didn't even bother to hear their case and that's why HL is going to lose.

Employees who may get/do medical procedures that the owners object to is the risk you take when you operate a for-profit business, especially one that chooses to fund its own insurance.

[Jim Kyle]

Tonight's news on Channel 9 reported about 26 nurses at a hospital back east who were fired for refusing to take flu shots, based on allergies or religious beliefs. That seems like a more extreme case of an employer forcing issues on (now ex-) employees than do any of the hypothetical extremes suggested in this thread!

The hospital's justification was that the shot was necessary to protect the general public. It seems that a case could be made either way, though.

And a federal judge has granted an injunction almost identical to what Hobby Lobby is requesting, in a case up north, as reported in today's Oklahoman.

It's not quite as simplistic as most of the discussion here seems to believe...

[Hawk405359]

Tonight's news on Channel 9 reported about 26 nurses at a hospital back east who were fired for refusing to take flu shots, based on allergies or religious beliefs. That seems like a more extreme case of an employer forcing issues on (now ex-) employees than do any of the hypothetical extremes suggested in this thread!

The hospital's justification was that the shot was necessary to protect the general public. It seems that a case could be made either way, though.

And a federal judge has granted an injunction almost identical to what Hobby Lobby is requesting, in a case up north, as reported in today's Oklahoman.

It's not quite as simplistic as most of the discussion here seems to believe...

The hospital thing makes total sense. Health professionals who are carriers are a serious risk for infecting patients, many of whom already have compromised immune systems or other issues that the flu could make much worse. . It's a major liability for a hospital for a nurse to work with the flu. Whereas the individual nurse really doesn't have any argument that them not taking it would improve the ability to do their job, the only options if they got sick would be to work sick (dangerous) or not work (costly and troublesome).

[Jim Kyle]

I agee fully that the hospital thing makes perfect sense. I only mentioned this because some folk in this thread seem to be arguing that an employer has no right whatsoever to "meddle" in an employee's healthcare decisions, although HL has never said a thing about forbidding use of the pills, just that they will not pay for them. Obviously, a nurse who happens to be allergic to the vaccination needs to find another line of work and avoid the problem altogether.

That other federal case, though, does raise some interesting points. One jurisdiction grants the injunction, another denies it, and the Supremes refuse to deal with the problem. Can you say "dysfunctional government" yet? Perhaps HL should simply move everything to that other jurisdiction...

[Snowman]

I agee fully that the hospital thing makes perfect sense. I only mentioned this because some folk in this thread seem to be arguing that an employer has no right whatsoever to "meddle" in an employee's healthcare decisions, although HL has never said a thing about forbidding use of the pills, just that they will not pay for them. Obviously, a nurse who happens to be allergic to the vaccination needs to find another line of work and avoid the problem altogether.

Flue shots do not seem as solid as most vaccinations, there are so many strains floating around that you are never protected from all of them and often not the most common type.

[Bunty]

Tonight's news on Channel 9 reported about 26 nurses at a hospital back east who were fired for refusing to take flu shots, based on allergies or religious beliefs. That seems like a more extreme case of an employer forcing issues on (now ex-) employees than do any of the hypothetical extremes suggested in this thread!

The hospital's justification was that the shot was necessary to protect the general public. It seems that a case could be made either way, though.

And a federal judge has granted an injunction almost identical to what Hobby Lobby is requesting, in a case up north, as reported in today's Oklahoman.

It's not quite as simplistic as most of the discussion here seems to believe...

Vaccines really are not free from serious side effects, rare as they may be. Probably the nurses have also seen first hand what those side effects are like and so do not want to take a chance with vaccines. People should have the right to decide for themselves, if risks associated with vaccines are worse than not getting vaccines and getting the diseases. Of course, plenty of conservatives are going to insist that Hobby Lobby should have the right to decide if morning after drugs are too much like abortion or is the same as abortion and so not want anything to do with such drugs.

[Hawk405359]

Vaccines really are not free from serious side effects, rare as they may be. Probably the nurses have also seen first hand what those side effects are like and so do not want to take a chance with vaccines. People should have the right to decide for themselves, if risks associated with vaccines are worse than not getting vaccines and getting the diseases. Of course, plenty of conservatives are going to insist that Hobby Lobby should have the right to decide if morning after drugs are too much like abortion or is the same as abortion and so not want anything to do with such drugs.

Most people do have a choice, but nurses work around people who could actually die if they got the flu as well as people who have the flu and are highly contagious. The probability of getting it from an infected nurse is much higher than suffering from any major side effects from a flu vaccine.

If you're working in a hospital, getting a flu vaccine is more than a fair job requirement.

Yeah, there are risks to vaccines, but there are risks to everything. You're more likely to die in a car crash on the way to work, but being physically there is still a job demand.

[RadicalModerate]

Same reason as a Firefighter/EMT we had required vaccines. Same reason as a Combat Medic in the Army, we had mandatory vaccines. Some requirements just come with the job.

100% with you on the "requirements" deal (for certain jobs . . . notably both examples, above, paid for by government funding).

Not so sure about how private sector job "benefits" align with that part of the equation.

If Hobby Lobby started marketing "religious themed" condoms as an alternative to "abortion pills" would it be possible to keep the ACLU out of this "controversy" regarding the "sweat shop conditions" under which the Hobby Lobby downtrodden are forced to labor?

After all . . . they already sell "Testamints" breath mints . . .

Perhaps get the "punitive fine" reduced to about a dollar?

[Dubya61]

Mr. Green says that the Plan B pill causes abortion yet there isn't one reputable medical association that says that.

WebMD (and I'm pretty sure that the contributing authors know their stuff and aren't following a political or religions agenda) says in their web page that discusses Plan B:
Plan B: 11 Questions, 11 Answers

9. How does Plan B work?
Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary. It may prevent a sperm from fertilizing the egg.

If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb. If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work and pregnancy proceeds normally.