Hobby Lobby

[TLK Valentine]

Yeah, I get that. Neither of us wants that result, but the solution you would offer is not acceptable to me, and the solution I would offer is not acceptable to you. So, we get what we get.

What we get is the judiciary -- all the way up to the Supreme Court if need be -- taking each event as it comes on a case-by-case basis, going by the Constitution, legal precedents, and the merits of each case.

Not only is that solution perfectly acceptable to me, but unless I'm missing something, it's exactly how the system is supposed to work.

 

[Resha Caner]

What we get is the judiciary -- all the way up to the Supreme Court if need be -- taking each event as it comes on a case-by-case basis, going by the Constitution, legal precedents, and the merits of each case.

Not only is that solution perfectly acceptable to me, but unless I'm missing something, it's exactly how the system is supposed to work.

I don't know that there is much more to say.

But as one last comment, I can't resist saying something like: Sure, you can follow some outdated Enlightenment document if you want, but the world knows better than that now and it's time to move on.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Sure, you can follow some outdated Enlightenment document if you want

Better than the outdated Bible written by desert nomads. Far, far superior.

 

[KCfromNC]

Is it scary that we would agree on something? This would be bad. It's not something I want. But it is what pluralism drives - micromanagement and loss of privacy. Since pluralism means a broad spectrum of views, much disagreement results, and so we're driven to negotiating how to handle every situation, line by line.

And the alternative?

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Why not? What viable alternative are you proposing?

 

[katautumn]

They want to have their cake and eat it too, even though the law gives them an option that would meet the owners religious requirements.

I don't blame them. No business owner should be forced to choose between having an edge against their competition by offering a comprehensive health insurance package to their employees and violating their conscience. It shouldn't be an either/or. They should be allowed to offer whatever Joe Blow insurance policy they see fit. At least it's insurance. So they can't get Plan B on it? Insurance doesn't usually cover that anyway these days, since you can buy it OTC at any Wal-Mart and Rite-Aid.

Hobby Lobby doesn't refuse to cover all birth control, nor are they "controlling women's bodies". If I worked for Hobby Lobby and I had unprotected sex and wanted to buy the Morning After Pill, I would just go to Wal-Mart, pay $40, and take care of it myself. Saying HL is controlling women or telling them what they can't do in the privacy of their bedroom is just childish, emotionally loaded language. It would be different if HL said, "and if we find out you got Mirena, we'll fire you."

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Why not? What viable alternative are you proposing?

I believe I mentioned what I think the government should be doing in the very post you quoted.

 

[cow451]

Oops! Hobby Lobby's 401k retirement plan for employees:

The Green's contention that the pills cause abortions is a central pillar of their argument for gutting the contraception mandate. Yet, for years, Hobby Lobby's health insurance plans did cover Plan B and Ella. It was only in 2012, when the Greens considered filing a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, that they dropped these drugs from the plan.

All nine funds—which have assets of $73 million, or three-quarters of the Hobby Lobby retirement plan's total assets—contained holdings that clashed with the Greens' stated religious principles.
Hobby Lobby and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the conservative group that provided Hobby Lobby with legal representation, did not respond to questions about these investments or whether Hobby Lobby has changed its retirement plan.

 

[revanneosl]

Oh that's too bad. I was really hoping that these were honest people, with actual principles, who just didn't understand science, or who had been badly misinformed by people they trusted.

Now it looks as though they are just a couple of wealthy political gamesters trying to score points against their opponents, no matter how many of their workers' lives they mess over.

Disappointing.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I love how the article links for cites, but it's always to another Mother Jones article. *sigh*

If they already covered it, then why the big deal about not covering it now? That's what leads me to believe that the statement "they only dropped it to file suit" isn't as simplistic as it seems.

The argument on the comments of one of the articles seem to say that employees should be able to use their wages as they see fit. I agree with that. So take health care out of the equation. Don't make it part of the "wage" then. I had that option at one of my jobs. I made more money because I didn't take the health care offered through the company. I didn't need it. However, with the ACA, I would've had to take it and I would've lost the wages I would've made. Not a fair trade.

I don't see the hypocrisy here. Perhaps someone finally sat down and really analyzed their health care plan. And in terms of investments, I have a 401k plan and while I can determine what type of program I'm in, I don't get a choice where that money goes. I can't say "please don't send my money to Pfizer". Maybe that's how it works for HL as well.

IOW, unless I see something that's not constantly circularly routed to another Mother Jones article, it's a little hard to make a factual judgement.

 

[cow451]

I love how the article links for cites, but it's always to another Mother Jones article. *sigh*

If they already covered it, then why the big deal about not covering it now? That's what leads me to believe that the statement "they only dropped it to file suit" isn't as simplistic as it seems.

The argument on the comments of one of the articles seem to say that employees should be able to use their wages as they see fit. I agree with that. So take health care out of the equation. Don't make it part of the "wage" then. I had that option at one of my jobs. I made more money because I didn't take the health care offered through the company. I didn't need it. However, with the ACA, I would've had to take it and I would've lost the wages I would've made. Not a fair trade.

I don't see the hypocrisy here. Perhaps someone finally sat down and really analyzed their health care plan. And in terms of investments, I have a 401k plan and while I can determine what type of program I'm in, I don't get a choice where that money goes. I can't say "please don't send my money to Pfizer". Maybe that's how it works for HL as well.

IOW, unless I see something that's not constantly circularly routed to another Mother Jones article, it's a little hard to make a factual judgement.

Companies have great control over how the 401k is set up and run. There are also, as the article points out, mutual funds that would help them do esxactly what they profess to do:

Similar options exist for companies that want to practice what's sometimes called faith-based investing. To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs—or products such as alcohol or pornography—religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research. Dan Hardt, a Kentucky financial planner who specializes in faith-based investing, says the performances of these funds are about the same as if they had not been screened. But Hobby Lobby's managers either were not aware of these options or chose not to invest in them.