Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:46:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 15:56:56 GMT
I know this isn't the main discussion here, but I agree. I feel like when women such as the "refupeas" use this phrase we're being almost disrespectful to woman in the world today and those from decades and centuries gone by who suffer and have suffered so much simply due to being born a woman. If I have to pay out of pocket for my birth control or even a prescription I use for medical reasons, I still feel my life as a woman is far, far better than many other women of today and years gone by. I feel like if those women wanted to say there was a war on them, I could understand, but I just don't personally feel it applies to woman such as those on this message board for instance. I still feel for anyone who has to fork out money for these things. I do. I've paid for plenty of things out of pocket over the years. It stinks. But I don't think it was because there was a war being waged against my gender. Amen! Gasp! I may have to pay for my own birth control pills. It's a war!! Seems freaking crazy to me. Who knew when I was paying for my bcp 30 yrs ago that there was a war on women? I sure with the Democrats would've filled me in sooner.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 1, 2014 16:34:57 GMT
I'm a Democrat and I'm the one she was quoting with the 'I dislike the war on women phrase'. A lot of liberal and Democrat women feel that it's an overused phrase. Kind of like the so called war on Christians.
But you're missing the point of the whole discussion. It's not all about women paying for their own BC. Go back and read the whole thread.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:46:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 16:48:13 GMT
I'm a Democrat and I'm the one she was quoting with the 'I dislike the war on women phrase'. A lot of liberal and Democrat women feel that it's an overused phrase. Kind of like the so called war on Christians. But you're missing the point of the whole discussion. It's not all about women paying for their own BC. Go back and read the whole thread. I've read the whole thread and while I agree that the "war on women" is not necessarily the issue in this thread...but my disgust goes back to the Fluke woman and BCP pre-HCA
|
|
|
Post by coaliesquirrel on Jul 1, 2014 17:05:07 GMT
Damn straight. MANY people agree with that comment, and I think it's ABSOLUTELY plausible that either piercing of the corporate veil becomes much easier or that a similar case invalidates the HL case without too much delay.
|
|
joycekb
Shy Member
Posts: 18
Jun 30, 2014 20:14:03 GMT
|
Post by joycekb on Jul 1, 2014 17:08:07 GMT
I beginning to think JustCallie is legal counsel for HL.
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Jul 1, 2014 17:09:09 GMT
I knew it was a tangent when I posted, and I apologize. I didn't want to derail the real topic at hand.
It was one of those things that you hear or see and it grates on you a bit, but you think you must be the only one, and when you see that you're not the only one you're so surprised that you automatically jump up and say "me too!".
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 1, 2014 17:11:22 GMT
HOBBY LOBBY DOES NOT MAKE MONEY FROM THEIR EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLANS!!!!!!! Yes I'm shouting. But as my previous 3 posts do not seem to resonate, I'll try again. If you want to make the argument that HL should not have a 401K as they cannot prevent their employees from investing THEIR funds in pharmaceutical companies when they invest in a mutual fund - fine. I will again reiterate that no retirement plan would pass ERISA standards without including a diversified stock option - you can include "socially responsible funds" in the offerings, but you cannot exclusively offer only those funds.
But it is totally and completely factually incorrect to say that Hobby Lobby is profiting from those investments. IT IS THE EMPLOYEES MONEY. Their 401K offers mutual funds including various index funds that include the entire stock market. The entire stock market would include pharmaceutical companies. It utterly wrong to say that they are making one a different choice when they can make money from the investing - IT IS NOT THEIR MONEY - THEY DO NOT PROFIT FROM THESE INVESTMENTS.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 1, 2014 17:18:22 GMT
I beginning to think JustCallie is legal counsel for HL. Seriously? I don't even live in the country. I just read a lot and keep up with news and information as best as I can to really know the true issues at play vs what some guy is screaming at me on TV. But I will take it as a compliment that you think I am a lawyer -turns out the money my parents spent on my education wasn't wasted... I am editing to add - and probably disappointing some of you, but in regards to the issue in this thread regarding women - I have no issues with birth control - I actually feel that another topic would be how we as women seem to feel as though it is all our issue - hell, if I was in a committed relationship where birth control is an issue, my SO would be forking over the money for the prescription. That's equality. I feel that for those who TRULY can't afford it (not people who are inconvenienced by the process or prioritize things I don't think are necessities over it) and they should have access to free birth control (which they currently do, if they choose to). I believe in a woman's right to choose. However, that does not mean 1. That I agree with your choice. 2. That I will support you in making a bad choice. 3. That I need to contribute monetarily or otherwise in any way to a choice I don't agree with. You have the right to make your choice - that is freedom. To expect others to agree with you, support you or pay for it - that's entitlement. I believe in personal responsibility - you make your own choices and you live with it. To me, there is no such thing as a good excuse.
|
|
|
Post by compwalla on Jul 1, 2014 17:41:27 GMT
The impact of this goes farther than just women having to pay for an IUD out of pocket. It's what other companies might do with the power to opt out of laws based on the corporation's sincerely held religious beliefs. Can they can decide not to extend benefits to legally married same-sex couples? I can see this coming. I still do not understand how a for-profit company can hold a religious belief. A person can but a company? I don't see it.
As for the direct impact this has on Texas women, this ruling combined with the Texas house bill 2 that closed or will close all but six clinics across the state does have a direct impact on low-income women being able to access the 4 mentioned forms of birth control. When you can't afford the hundreds of dollars in up-front cost your regular gyn charges for Mirena and the Planned Parenthood clinic where you get get it for a reduced cost is closed, then this form of birth control, the safest and most effective, is simply out of reach. It's more complicated than "just pay out of pocket" if your pockets aren't deep enough. The newest science says IUDs do not prevent implantation as previously thought but even that doesn't matter to SCOTUS - the majority ruling just says the "company" just has to believe they do. And Mirena is not just used for birth control; it is also used to treat endometriosis. Your employer can effectively block their employees from obtaining an effective safe treatment because they believe something scientifically inaccurate. This is so bananas to me that I can't even wrap my brain around it.
|
|
|
Post by justkallie on Jul 1, 2014 17:45:16 GMT
The impact of this goes farther than just women having to pay for an IUD out of pocket. It's what other companies might do with the power to opt out of laws based on the corporation's sincerely held religious beliefs. Can they can decide not to extend benefits to legally married same-sex couples? I can see this coming. I still do not understand how a for-profit company can hold a religious belief. A person can but a company? I don't see it. As for the direct impact this has on Texas women, this ruling combined with the Texas house bill 2 that closed or will close all but six clinics across the state does have a direct impact on low-income women being able to access the 4 mentioned forms of birth control. When you can't afford the hundreds of dollars in up-front cost your regular gyn charges for Mirena and the Planned Parenthood clinic where you get get it for a reduced cost is closed, then this form of birth control, the safest and most effective, is simply out of reach. It's more complicated than "just pay out of pocket" if your pockets aren't deep enough. The newest science says IUDs do not prevent implantation as previously thought but even that doesn't matter to SCOTUS - the majority ruling just says the "company" just has to believe they do. And Mirena is not just used for birth control; it is also used to treat endometriosis. Your employer can effectively block their employees from obtaining an effective safe treatment because they believe something scientifically inaccurate. This is so bananas to me that I can't even wrap my brain around it. Texas apparently has a plan that could cover many of the hourly employees affected by this issue - www.texaswomenshealth.org/page/who-can-get-womens-health-program-benefits
|
|
|
Post by cropaholicnora on Jul 1, 2014 17:45:53 GMT
HOBBY LOBBY DOES NOT MAKE MONEY FROM THEIR EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLANS!!!!!!! Yes I'm shouting. But as my previous 3 posts do not seem to resonate, I'll try again. If you want to make the argument that HL should not have a 401K as they cannot prevent their employees from investing THEIR funds in pharmaceutical companies when they invest in a mutual fund - fine. I will again reiterate that no retirement plan would pass ERISA standards without including a diversified stock option - you can include "socially responsible funds" in the offerings, but you cannot exclusively offer only those funds. But it is totally and completely factually incorrect to say that Hobby Lobby is profiting from those investments. IT IS THE EMPLOYEES MONEY. Their 401K offers mutual funds including various index funds that include the entire stock market. The entire stock market would include pharmaceutical companies. It utterly wrong to say that they are making one a different choice when they can make money from the investing - IT IS NOT THEIR MONEY - THEY DO NOT PROFIT FROM THESE INVESTMENTS. There are multiple "Christian" mutual funds that would meet Hobby Lobby's stated moral standards. Some of it IS their money because Hobby Lobby makes matching contributions to their employees 401k plans. Whether they profit from these investments is not the point. The point is that Hobby Lobby is knowingly contributing their financial resources to the pharmaceutical companies that produce the very products that they have sought to exclude from the health care package.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 1, 2014 17:56:48 GMT
HOBBY LOBBY DOES NOT MAKE MONEY FROM THEIR EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLANS!!!!!!! Yes I'm shouting. But as my previous 3 posts do not seem to resonate, I'll try again. If you want to make the argument that HL should not have a 401K as they cannot prevent their employees from investing THEIR funds in pharmaceutical companies when they invest in a mutual fund - fine. I will again reiterate that no retirement plan would pass ERISA standards without including a diversified stock option - you can include "socially responsible funds" in the offerings, but you cannot exclusively offer only those funds. But it is totally and completely factually incorrect to say that Hobby Lobby is profiting from those investments. IT IS THE EMPLOYEES MONEY. Their 401K offers mutual funds including various index funds that include the entire stock market. The entire stock market would include pharmaceutical companies. It utterly wrong to say that they are making one a different choice when they can make money from the investing - IT IS NOT THEIR MONEY - THEY DO NOT PROFIT FROM THESE INVESTMENTS. There are multiple "Christian" mutual funds that would meet Hobby Lobby's stated moral standards. Some of it IS their money because Hobby Lobby makes matching contributions to their employees 401k plans. Whether they profit from these investments is not the point. The point is that Hobby Lobby is knowingly contributing their financial resources to the pharmaceutical companies that produce the very products that they have sought to exclude from the health care package. -------- Double quoting seems to be problem - cropholicnora's comment is above, mine is below----------------------------------------- There are specific ERISA standards on fiduciary duties for a plan administrator with asset diversification being a key component. It took almost 5 years, and a ruling to even offering these types of mutual funds in an plan, offering them exclusively would not be allowed. I should give the caveat of current offerings, if the size and offerings, changed it might be possible at some time in the future to meet the standards. The money is no longer Hobby Lobby's after it put in the employees account and it is the EMPLOYEE who chooses the investment. And whether they profit or not is absolutely the point of most posts. Several posters have stated they do profit. And even went so far as to say that they lose their moral compass when they can make money - using the retirement funds as the example. It is utterly factually WRONG!
|
|
|
Post by dawndoll on Jul 1, 2014 18:22:20 GMT
I'm sure my view on this is way too basic, but...before I retired I had decent insurance. There were always some things they did not cover. For example: many drugs were only covered in the generic form. Even if my doc thought the name brand was the best choice for me, too bad. I could either choose what they covered and have it paid for by them or pay for my choice of brands out of my pocket. Same thing goes for plastic surgery. I lost a ton of weight and (TMI here, I know) but my breasts sagged so much they looked like loaves of French bread. Which lead to skin breakdown on the overlapping skin folds. My doc said that I medically needed a breast lift. I had the rashes, infections, back pain, etc. to warrant it. BUT...my insurance refused to pay for plastic surgery of any kind, necessary or not. My choice was to forgo it or pay for it out of my own pocket. Heck, there wasn't even an alternative surgery they would pay for in that case. Nobody at HL is saying that women can't get birth control. In fact, there are several choices they can use. There are a few (4 I think?) choices they can STILL use but will have to pay for out of pocket. Much like the brand name drugs my insurance wouldn't pay for. Nobody is taking away the option for women to use any kind of BC they want. I will go even further to say that my BC pills were never covered by insurance back in the days when I was on them. Even as a teen, for trying to correct and regulate my periods. Just not all things are covered, period.
|
|
|
Post by anniefb on Jul 1, 2014 19:07:46 GMT
And I have a question; any lawyers out there? I read this on Andrew Sullivan's blog; it is part of a comment from a reader. But I have read the same thing in several places, and I would like to know what the Peas make of it: "But if that’s the way that so-called conservative jurisprudence wants to go, they also need to consider this: If there’s no separation between the individual religious beliefs of business owners/controllers and their operations, why should there be any separation of liability. I’d like to see the legal logic that says you can have one without forfeiting the other." Is this plausible? This decision has a certainly opened that possibility. I'm a lawyer and if I was Mr & Mrs Hobby Lobby I'd be pretty concerned. They've just voluntarily given up the key tenet of company law (corporation as separate legal entity). The decision might suit them today but could just as easily be used against them tomorrow. If the company is the same person as the shareholders on this issue, why should it be any different if the company gets in financial difficulties but the shareholders have amassed a nice fortune? Or if the company is accused of something, shouldn't Mr & Mrs HL be held personally liable because it was their control that led to the event? Either a corporation is a separate legal entity or it isn't and my view is there isn't any principled legal basis on which to remove the separation in this situation but to leave it in place in another.
|
|
|
Post by *KatyCupcake* on Jul 1, 2014 19:12:04 GMT
The hypocrisy shown by Hobby Lobby is astounding. They had no problem having those four types of birth control included in their insurance coverage before the ACA became law. Hmmmmm. Provide a link please. I have never seen evidence to support this claim.
|
|
|
Post by dulcemama on Jul 1, 2014 19:13:32 GMT
By that logic then, once the money is in the insurance policy, it is no long Hobby Lobby's and they should have no interest in how the insurance is used.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 1, 2014 19:37:50 GMT
By that logic then, once the money is in the insurance policy, it is no long Hobby Lobby's and they should have no interest in how the insurance is used. No, on this issue Darcey is right. Doesn't matter which way you spin it, HL doesn't make money from the retirement plans, nor do they profit in any way from the matching funds they put in.
|
|
|
Post by I-95 on Jul 1, 2014 19:42:12 GMT
The hypocrisy shown by Hobby Lobby is astounding. They had no problem having those four types of birth control included in their insurance coverage before the ACA became law. Hmmmmm. Provide a link please. I have never seen evidence to support this claim. Is your Google finger broken? Hobby Lobby admitted that in their original complaint.....the information is out there and easy to find.
|
|
|
Post by dynalady on Jul 1, 2014 19:47:05 GMT
To my mind it isn't just a question of profit. The fact is, by putting their money in, they are supporting companies that are producing products that they claim to be against their religious beliefs. The same beliefs they use to justify excluding coverage of these same products in their insurance plan.
|
|
|
Post by rebelyelle on Jul 1, 2014 20:08:24 GMT
By that logic then, once the money is in the insurance policy, it is no long Hobby Lobby's and they should have no interest in how the insurance is used. No, on this issue Darcey is right. Doesn't matter which way you spin it, HL doesn't make money from the retirement plans, nor do they profit in any way from the matching funds they put in. Question (because it appears *my* google finger is broken - I just can't seem to find the info) - are HL's execs ALSO vested in the company's 401k?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:46:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 20:35:05 GMT
I know this isn't the main discussion here, but I agree. I feel like when women such as the "refupeas" use this phrase we're being almost disrespectful to woman in the world today and those from decades and centuries gone by who suffer and have suffered so much simply due to being born a woman. If I have to pay out of pocket for my birth control or even a prescription I use for medical reasons, I still feel my life as a woman is far, far better than many other women of today and years gone by. I feel like if those women wanted to say there was a war on them, I could understand, but I just don't personally feel it applies to woman such as those on this message board for instance. I still feel for anyone who has to fork out money for these things. I do. I've paid for plenty of things out of pocket over the years. It stinks. But I don't think it was because there was a war being waged against my gender. I'll go a step farther and say that women who demand that others pay for their choices are so far from liberated, it isn't even funny. You can't demand that the government and corporations stay out of your bedroom, then demand that they be forced to pay for what goes on in your bedroom. You can't demand that HL be held to a higher moral standard and then turn around and NOT demand that women hold themselves to the same moral standards. You are either liberated and free or you are dependent. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:46:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 20:48:24 GMT
By that logic then, once the money is in the insurance policy, it is no long Hobby Lobby's and they should have no interest in how the insurance is used. Well, companies like HL could get around it this way: let the employees choose the plan that they will offer. If they gave them the choice, and told them that the company would pay $200/mo per employee not matter what plan they chose...I could see something like the following: Plan A (no abortifacients coverage) would cost employees $100/mo out of pocket. Plan B (abortifacients covered) would cost employees $200/mo out of pocket. I would bet my life on the fact that the employees would overwhelmingly choose plan A. But if they did choose plan B, then the financial and moral burden of the plan would be on them and not on the company. Problem solved.
|
|
|
Post by dawndoll on Jul 1, 2014 20:54:56 GMT
By that logic then, once the money is in the insurance policy, it is no long Hobby Lobby's and they should have no interest in how the insurance is used. Well, companies like HL could get around it this way: let the employees choose the plan that they will offer. If they gave them the choice, and told them that the company would pay $200/mo per employee not matter what plan they chose...I could see something like the following: Plan A (no abortifacients coverage) would cost employees $100/mo out of pocket. Plan B (abortifacients covered) would cost employees $200/mo out of pocket. I would bet my life on the fact that the employees would overwhelmingly choose plan A. But if they did choose plan B, then the financial and moral burden of the plan would be on them and not on the company. Problem solved. But then you would still have people enraged because their bc cost them an extra $1200 a year.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 1, 2014 21:02:03 GMT
And to me, that makes you a true supporter of women's rights. You are looking to empower them rather than make them dependent on others.
Exactly. To me, the true "hypocrites" are those who demand both of these things.
|
|
|
Post by Kymberlee on Jul 1, 2014 21:21:42 GMT
I have read through most of this thread, and I have a couple of questions. First, HL paid for the majority of bc options on the market right? I sort of feel that the gov't was very heavy handed and when it demanded that ALL bc be paid for regardless of how the company feels about it. Maybe this would have been a nice place for a compromise? OK, as long as you (the company) is providing BC options, we (the gov't) will stay out of your business. Does that make sense? If employee wanted X type of bc, they would either pay of of pocket for it. I pay out of pocket for many things concerning my health and well being. I guess it goes back to the fact that the gov't said my way or the highway, and HL found a legal way to say FU. Now, some companies have a legal basis to deny ALL contraceptives based on religion. Not a very good thought. Kind of like the law of unintended consequences?
Another question…Is it the Supreme Courts job to look at the"slippery slope" and rule based on what could happen down the road? Or does the SC rule on the issue in front of them based on laws already on the books?
Another question since I am having a little trouble finding the answer. Was the BC mandate a part of the original ACA law or was it added later? I have heard both so if someone knows, I would love clarification.
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jul 1, 2014 21:37:59 GMT
By that logic then, once the money is in the insurance policy, it is no long Hobby Lobby's and they should have no interest in how the insurance is used. Well, companies like HL could get around it this way: let the employees choose the plan that they will offer. If they gave them the choice, and told them that the company would pay $200/mo per employee not matter what plan they chose...I could see something like the following: Plan A (no abortifacients coverage) would cost employees $100/mo out of pocket. Plan B (abortifacients covered) would cost employees $200/mo out of pocket. I would bet my life on the fact that the employees would overwhelmingly choose plan A. But if they did choose plan B, then the financial and moral burden of the plan would be on them and not on the company. Problem solved. I think....although I am not positive.....that the problem with that was that employers cannot offer a plan without them. The list of 20 birth control options had to be offered, with no copay or additional charge, in ALL plans.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:46:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 21:59:06 GMT
JustKallie, I don't remember you from 2Peas, but I am so glad you're here. Ditto!
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,387
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Jul 1, 2014 22:07:42 GMT
Do you know about investing? People hire others to invest money for them? Sometimes they don't always know everything about every investment? See, I definitely take issue with that point. They are more than capable of telling their broker/investment manager that they don't want to invest in companies that go against their values. Financial analysts/advisors go over that in the very beginning. It's part of the whole spiel re: risk level & all the aspects of investing. So yes, it does seem hypocritical to me that they won't cover IUDs or the MAP for someone who needs it, yet they will invest their 401Ks in abortion/contraceptive companies.
|
|
cycworker
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,387
Jun 26, 2014 0:42:38 GMT
|
Post by cycworker on Jul 1, 2014 22:10:52 GMT
I would also like to know how this decision differs from the Christian photographer in Utah who refused to photograph a gay wedding based on her religious beliefs. She was sued by the gay couple and was lost, pretty much give a big F-You by the courts telling her that she could not use her religious beliefs as a reason not to photo the wedding. The photographer offered to snap pics of the couple, just not the actual marriage ceremony. So how does this differ from the decision based on the claim of "religious beliefs" ? That is a fascinating question. I have come to conclude I support the photographer in those cases, because I believe individual, private contractors have a right to determine with whom they wish to do business. A shop/store, however, is different. That is an entity vs an individual.
|
|
|
Post by gardengoddess on Jul 1, 2014 22:14:04 GMT
To my mind it isn't just a question of profit. The fact is, by putting their money in, they are supporting companies that are producing products that they claim to be against their religious beliefs. The same beliefs they use to justify excluding coverage of these same products in their insurance plan. That's where I'm at also and it is SUCH sweet irony that the main supplier of the crap they sell practices forced birth control. It just makes them look silly and not at all credible in their beliefs.
|
|