Hobby Lobby

Why are employers responsible for covering people anyway?

PreachersWife2004 said:

Why are employers responsible for covering people anyway?

Click to expand...

I dunno. It should be the state's responsibility. But apparently some people are opposed to that, so it falls on employers instead.

Skaloop said:

I dunno. It should be the state's responsibility. But apparently some people are opposed to that, so it falls on employers instead.

Click to expand...

Why can't it be MY responsibility to cover myself?

PreachersWife2004 said:

Why can't it be MY responsibility to cover myself?

Click to expand...

Due to the nature of the risk it is virtually impossible to manage it adequately by ones self. However, that doesn't mean you have "no" responsibility.

AirPo said:

Due to the nature of the risk it is virtually impossible to manage it adequately by ones self. However, that doesn't mean you have "no" responsibility.

Click to expand...

The "nature of the risk" = ungodly high health care costs.

That's where the government needs to be reforming.

PreachersWife2004 said:

Why can't it be MY responsibility to cover myself?

Click to expand...

Because while you may cover yourself (although I do seem to recall that you let your employer do it, contact lenses excepted) others are not able to do so. And personally, I'm of the mind that people should be able to get the health care they need even if they can't do so on their own.

Skaloop said:

Because while you may cover yourself (although I do seem to recall that you let your employer do it, contact lenses excepted) others are not able to do so. And personally, I'm of the mind that people should be able to get the health care they need even if they can't do so on their own.

Click to expand...

I do it because my employer offers it.

But that's not the question I'm asking. Why aren't we responsible for it? If the costs are too high, why aren't people asking WHY they're high?

Why do we just assume that it's the employer's responsibility or the state's responsibility?

I agree with that last sentence. So why are health costs so doggone high? Why can't we change THAT instead of making everyone else responsible for everyone else?

PreachersWife2004 said:

I do it because my employer offers it.

But that's not the question I'm asking. Why aren't we responsible for it? If the costs are too high, why aren't people asking WHY they're high?

Why do we just assume that it's the employer's responsibility or the state's responsibility?

I agree with that last sentence. So why are health costs so doggone high? Why can't we change THAT instead of making everyone else responsible for everyone else?

Click to expand...

Because in the US we have a health care industry, not a health care system. You think you wailing of "Socialism! Marxism!" is loud now. See what happens if the government tries to forcibly remove the profit motive from health care.

PreachersWife2004 said:

I do it because my employer offers it.

But that's not the question I'm asking. Why aren't we responsible for it? If the costs are too high, why aren't people asking WHY they're high?

Why do we just assume that it's the employer's responsibility or the state's responsibility?

I agree with that last sentence. So why are health costs so doggone high? Why can't we change THAT instead of making everyone else responsible for everyone else?

Click to expand...

Health is stupidly expensive in America because of the profit driven nature of healthcare, which is disgraceful. Healthcare should be about the patient, not the profit margins.

Supreme said:

Health is stupidly expensive in America because of the profit driven nature of healthcare, which is disgraceful. Healthcare should be about the patient, not the profit margins.

Click to expand...

oh I agree.

It just burns me that rather than go after the health care trap itself the government decides to go after businesses and force them to pay for stuff.

It shouldn't be up to our employers to cover our medical costs and the government shouldn't be telling the employers what they have to cover.

John Green explains it well:

Why Are American Health Care Costs So High? - YouTube

Resha Caner said:

You admitted that paying the tax is just an indirect way of paying for these services. So, in the end, Hobby Lobby (and me for that matter) would still be financially supporting something they object to. That is not an acceptable solution, and it never will be.

Click to expand...

Right, but that's inevitable. That's why I said that whenever you pay taxes in general, these things go to stuff that many of us dislike. My taxes pay for the salaries of many politicians I dislike. My taxes go to military operations I dislike. Many opponents to same-sex marriage have their taxes go to pay the salaries of government officials who officiate civil same-sex marriages. And on it goes. The solution isn't "make me opt out of paying taxes" simply because they'll always end up going to something you'll eventually disagree with. That's asinine. How will that work on a practical level? You don't think people could always feign moral outrage to create an exemption for themselves when in reality they just didn't want to pay? This is why Justice Scalia said, in another opinion regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), that liberally granting religious exemptions could court anarchy. He said in that opinion that it could "'excuse the lawbreaking of draft dodgers, tax evaders, child abusers, drug users, traffic violators, animal abusers, employers violating child labor laws, and racist businesspeople."

Resha Caner said:

But if my taxes are subsidizing something I consider murder, that will never be acceptable.

Click to expand...

That's a completely different gripe not at issue here. You're now arguing about a broader, philosophical question. Here's we're only talking about whether they should be required to directly provide a particular care. And by "they" I also only mean a Chapter S corporation that is tightly held. We need not even discuss what would happen in a situation where a publicly-traded corporation with X percent of shareholders collide with the assertions made by a founder or CEO or whatnot. Here it's about a person's religious exercise. One question is whether a corporation can exercise a religious, not just the individual people, under that constitutional provision. Another question, assuming the answer is yes to the previous question, which solution is the least restrictive alternative. If the burden is placed but it is the least restrictive alternative, it can stand.

PreachersWife2004 said:

Well, birth control in my family has caused way more issues with fertility than anything else.

Plus, no one is preventing women from getting this treatment.

IUDs and the morning after pill generally aren't given for hormone treatment. IUDs often CAUSE hormonal imbalances.

Remember, Hobby Lobby provided 16 out of the 20 birth control options already. Doesn't seem like they're trying to prevent anything.

I think that's a stretch of the language.

Hobby Lobby doesn't want to prevent surgeries that may result in infertility. They merely don't want to pay for four drugs that they deem are pregnancy-ending drugs. Let's face it - especially with the morning-after pill - these drugs aren't used as life-saving drugs.

Birth control really was the wrong mountain for ACA to make its stand on.

Click to expand...

My insurance has not had a copay for birth control devices for years. I had a tubal ligation years ago. The Mirena IUD that I have used for 10 years (well the 2 IUD's, they are good for 5 years) was a choice my doctor and I made to stop excessive bleeding. The HORMONES slow down or stop menstruation for many women while they use the Mirena and it's approved for that purpose. My insurance company reimburses participating providers less than $300 for the Mirena, there is no copay. For just $600 for a 10 year period so far using the Mirena has prevented the need for an ablasion or hysterectomy both of which would have been significantly more expensive even adding another couple rounds of 5 year IUD stints for me. I had anemia so severe I was hospitalized and the effectiveness of my medications for other health conditions were compromised by the conditions. In the long term it really could have been a life and death issue.

Personally It's not my employer's business why I need a medically approved product. They provide the insurance, I pay my almost $500 a month premiums. My employer isn't providing medical care nor controlling my decisions for my body and they shouldn't be. Hobby Lobby needs to stop selling all that Chinese made crap if they are so concerned about directly contributing to birth control and abortion, not to mention in country trafficking. Maybe they should focus on creating jobs in the manufacturing industry in the US rather than worrying about their brick and mortar store employees taking a birth control pill.

That said ... just have a national health plan. This insurance nonsense is merely a means to keep the medical profits up I want people to have health CARE, not health INSURANCE. Insurance doesn't guarantee care, just more red tape. (Of course I say that as someone with decent health care.. since so many US citizens get themselves all twisted about socialism everyone a national health service is discussed I'm thinking we'll be stuck making the industry rich on our backs for years to come) Let places like hobby lobby flap around in their hypocritical stew and let people get the health care they need and let that care not be any of their business.

poolerboy0077 said:

Right, but that's inevitable. That's why I said that whenever you pay taxes in general, these things go to stuff that many of us dislike. My taxes pay for the salaries of many politicians I dislike. My taxes go to military operations I dislike. Many opponents to same-sex marriage have their taxes go to pay the salaries of government officials who officiate civil same-sex marriages. And on it goes. The solution isn't "make me opt out of paying taxes" simply because they'll always end up going to something you'll eventually disagree with. That's asinine. How will that work on a practical level? You don't think people could always feign moral outrage to create an exemption for themselves when in reality they just didn't want to pay? This is why Justice Scalia said, in another opinion regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), that liberally granting religious exemptions could court anarchy. He said in that opinion that it could "'excuse the lawbreaking of draft dodgers, tax evaders, child abusers, drug users, traffic violators, animal abusers, employers violating child labor laws, and racist businesspeople."


That's a completely different gripe not at issue here. You're now arguing about a broader, philosophical question. Here's we're only talking about whether they should be required to directly provide a particular care. And by "they" I also only mean a Chapter S corporation that is tightly held. We need not even discuss what would happen in a situation where a publicly-traded corporation with X percent of shareholders collide with the assertions made by a founder or CEO or whatnot. Here it's about a person's religious exercise. One question is whether a corporation can exercise a religious, not just the individual people, under that constitutional provision. Another question, assuming the answer is yes to the previous question, which solution is the least restrictive alternative. If the burden is placed but it is the least restrictive alternative, it can stand.

Click to expand...

Actually I'm in favor of excusing lawbreaking of draft dodgers as long as it only pertains to dodging a draft.

wanderingone said:

My insurance has not had a copay for birth control devices for years. I had a tubal ligation years ago. The Mirena IUD that I have used for 10 years (well the 2 IUD's, they are good for 5 years) was a choice my doctor and I made to stop excessive bleeding. The HORMONES slow down or stop menstruation for many women while they use the Mirena and it's approved for that purpose. My insurance company reimburses participating providers less than $300 for the Mirena, there is no copay. For just $600 for a 10 year period so far using the Mirena has prevented the need for an ablasion or hysterectomy both of which would have been significantly more expensive even adding another couple rounds of 5 year IUD stints for me. I had anemia so severe I was hospitalized and the effectiveness of my medications for other health conditions were compromised by the conditions. In the long term it really could have been a life and death issue.

Personally It's not my employer's business why I need a medically approved product. They provide the insurance, I pay my almost $500 a month premiums. My employer isn't providing medical care nor controlling my decisions for my body and they shouldn't be. Hobby Lobby needs to stop selling all that Chinese made crap if they are so concerned about directly contributing to birth control and abortion, not to mention in country trafficking. Maybe they should focus on creating jobs in the manufacturing industry in the US rather than worrying about their brick and mortar store employees taking a birth control pill.

Click to expand...

This whole China argument is a moot point. Hobby Lobby IS employing people here in the US, A LOT. In the Cities area here in MN, they are opening 70 stores alone.

Last I knew, the Chinese WORKERS weren't the ones forcing people to get abortions in China.

And hey, bully for you that an IUD worked for you. For your story, there's dozens of horror stories. I'm one of them.

That said ... just have a national health plan. This insurance nonsense is merely a means to keep the medical profits up I want people to have health CARE, not health INSURANCE. Insurance doesn't guarantee care, just more red tape. (Of course I say that as someone with decent health care.. since so many US citizens get themselves all twisted about socialism everyone a national health service is discussed I'm thinking we'll be stuck making the industry rich on our backs for years to come) Let places like hobby lobby flap around in their hypocritical stew and let people get the health care they need and let that care not be any of their business.

Click to expand...

I have friends who live in countries with socialized health care. It is not all it's cracked up to be. When you're on the poor side of things, you still suffer.

I don't believe Hobby Lobby is hypocritical, either. I assume you don't shop there, right?

Paulos23 said:

John Green explains it well:

Why Are American Health Care Costs So High? - YouTube

Click to expand...

The largest cost influence, is the simple fact that healthcare professionals make a lot more money in the united states and the difference is quite large. The other factors are; cost of third parties (insurance companies), high cost of drugs, liability/defensive medicine, high tech medical equipment, and obesity, which increases risk of; diabetes, heart disease, cancer and other costly health problems.

bhsmte said:

The largest cost influence, is the simple fact that healthcare professionals make a lot more money in the united states and the difference is quite large. The other factors are; cost of third parties (insurance companies), high cost of drugs, liability/defensive medicine, high tech medical equipment, and obesity, which increases risk of; diabetes, heart disease, cancer and other costly health problems.

Click to expand...

I think that the cost of malpractice insurance plays into it as well.

One of our church members used to be a doctor. He ended facing a decision of either going to work at the hospital and having horrendous hours or closing his clinic down because the cost of his malpractice insurance was astronomical. And he'd never had a claim filed against him, either. And he didn't want to charge his patients outrageous fees just so he could pay his insurance.

PreachersWife2004 said:

I think that the cost of malpractice insurance plays into it as well.

One of our church members used to be a doctor. He ended facing a decision of either going to work at the hospital and having horrendous hours or closing his clinic down because the cost of his malpractice insurance was astronomical. And he'd never had a claim filed against him, either. And he didn't want to charge his patients outrageous fees just so he could pay his insurance.

Click to expand...

High cost of liability isurance is all part of defensive medicine. It is not unusual, for some surgeons to pay 100-200K per year in malpractice insurance.

The mere necisity of insurance companies is a huge financial burden on our costs.

PreachersWife2004 said:

Why can't it be MY responsibility to cover myself?

Click to expand...

It certainly can be, and for many of us, it is. I don't get health coverage for either of my jobs, so I pay for it myself.

Companies offer health benefits voluntarily as an incentive to their employees -- the issue is, whatever they offer, they need to offer fairly to all their employees.

Denying birth control to women unfairly discriminates against female employees -- especially when goods and services such as vasectomies, ED drugs such as Viagra or Cialis, etc., are covered without so much as a whisper of outrage.

Cover all or cover none.