Hobby hypocrisy lobby

[marplots]

Fully agreed, paying all, or most, of the insurance tab doesn't mean you get a say in medical diagnosis or treatment of those covered.

This isn't so, so long as there are variations in what you can pay for. For example, I can decide to pay all the costs for vision care, or not. The treatments covered under a policy are directly related to the provisions of the insurance contracted for and the price paid. Some policies will cover chiropractic care, some won't. Maybe I'd like to have homeopathic treatments, but my employer is unwilling to pay for a policy that covers them.

There is no particular shield in place, except when certain coverage is mandated and except that I must treat all employees with the same coverage the same. So, for example, I can't simply step in as an employer and say employee X won't get vision care if I pay for it for their peers.

This is just as true for healthcare paid for by the government. If Medicaid doesn't cover some treatment, it is a consequence of the the prior arrangement between the government and the healthcare system they've contracted with. The one footing the bills absolutely has input in these matters, even when the bill payer is the taxpayer.

 

[xjx388]

This isn't so, so long as there are variations in what you can pay for. For example, I can decide to pay all the costs for vision care, or not. The treatments covered under a policy are directly related to the provisions of the insurance contracted for and the price paid. Some policies will cover chiropractic care, some won't. Maybe I'd like to have homeopathic treatments, but my employer is unwilling to pay for a policy that covers them.



There is no particular shield in place, except when certain coverage is mandated and except that I must treat all employees with the same coverage the same. So, for example, I can't simply step in as an employer and say employee X won't get vision care if I pay for it for their peers.



This is just as true for healthcare paid for by the government. If Medicaid doesn't cover some treatment, it is a consequence of the the prior arrangement between the government and the healthcare system they've contracted with. The one footing the bills absolutely has input in these matters, even when the bill payer is the taxpayer.

This.

Hobby Lobby has always provided health insurance and they chose not to buy the one that provides BC. Thus they had a right not to pay for BC before. Now they are being forced to pay for it which is the crux of the issue.

 

[plague311]

This.

Hobby Lobby has always provided health insurance and they chose not to buy the one that provides BC. Thus they had a right not to pay for BC before. Now they are being forced to pay for it which is the crux of the issue.

Uh, no, according to the OP the crux of the issue is that they're hypocrites. Which is completely factual, and what you, and marplots stated has no effect on that in anyway. As we stated before there are several reasons as to why people take birth control.

Neither you nor marplots have shown they aren't hypocrites in that they ban BC from being offered to their employees, but have no qualms investing in it.

 

[Trakar]

Just like paying my salary doesn't allow you to tell me how to spend it.

Well, and even from a religious perspective, community outreach and doing what we can to bring the message of God's love to those who don't know it, or who have turned their back on religion, isn't about condemning these people or trying to make it impossible for them to live or behave as they see fit in their personal lives, it is about setting personal examples and trying, through those personal examples, to show people that they do have other options and choices that they can, of their free will, adopt if they so choose.
Providing health insurance is not the same thing as running a health clinic in your company (not that I would agree to withholding health care options then, but at least the argument would be understandable).

 

[marplots]

Uh, no, according to the OP the crux of the issue is that they're hypocrites. Which is completely factual, and what you, and marplots stated has no effect on that in anyway. As we stated before there are several reasons as to why people take birth control.

Neither you nor marplots have shown they aren't hypocrites in that they ban BC from being offered to their employees, but have no qualms investing in it.

Sure they are hypocrites. It's just that the structure of insurance payments allows it - or at least, allows it in some cases. There's nothing particularly illegal, nor uncommon about being a hypocrite.

The problem here won't go away if they quit investing in companies that make abortifacients (or whatever they are being hypocritical about). It doesn't change if Hobby Lobby sticks to one script or if they really are expressing their true beliefs.

You might even claim they are being hypocritical as a matter of course, at least how I remember it - weren't they going to close up shop if the ACA passed?

My only objection was to the myth that the doctor/patient relationship is somehow sacrosanct. I can assure you it isn't, at least when I was in the mix. There's a reason HIPAA regulations exist - because they are needed.

 

[Trakar]

This.

Hobby Lobby has always provided health insurance and they chose not to buy the one that provides BC. Thus they had a right not to pay for BC before. Now they are being forced to pay for it which is the crux of the issue.

Actually, hobby lobby has always paid for insurance coverage for BC and they intend to still cover this, they are just arguing that their religious beliefs about some particular chemical BC methods are that these chemicals are abortifactants, regardless of what the science says about the mechanisms of action. They want the option of basing their employee's health insurance coverages to be based upon their particular unsupported religious beliefs regarding the particular mechanisms of action of some particular medicines and therapies.

 

[Trakar]

This isn't so, so long as there are variations in what you can pay for. For example, I can decide to pay all the costs for vision care, or not. The treatments covered under a policy are directly related to the provisions of the insurance contracted for and the price paid. Some policies will cover chiropractic care, some won't. Maybe I'd like to have homeopathic treatments, but my employer is unwilling to pay for a policy that covers them.

There is no particular shield in place, except when certain coverage is mandated and except that I must treat all employees with the same coverage the same. So, for example, I can't simply step in as an employer and say employee X won't get vision care if I pay for it for their peers.

This is just as true for healthcare paid for by the government. If Medicaid doesn't cover some treatment, it is a consequence of the the prior arrangement between the government and the healthcare system they've contracted with. The one footing the bills absolutely has input in these matters, even when the bill payer is the taxpayer.

The insurance they have and were providing already offered coverage for the full range of BC coverage, Hobby Lobby was trying to get them to drop coverage of certain chemical BC options, ACA was mandating that the insurance companies continue to offer, or expand to offer a set range of BC options. The Insurance company had no problem with this, Hobby Lobby desired coverage that did not offer certain options based upon their personal religious beliefs that despite what science indicates some of these options were not BC but abortive agents.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It takes a lot of confirmation bias to deny the hypocrisy is relevant.

Either any of us can take or leave laws we don't like by claiming that is what we believe, or Hobby Lobby is presenting a dishonest pretense for their religious objection to the ACA.

Clearly they are making up a dishonest pretense. It's regulation they don't like, and it has nothing to do with religious objection to birth control. If they truly had a religious objection they would have invested pension funds to reflect that belief in the same way.

It's typical right-wing ideology sour grapes obstructionism and Mother Jones' reporters pulled the curtain back.

 

[marplots]

The insurance they have and were providing already offered coverage for the full range of BC coverage, Hobby Lobby was trying to get them to drop coverage of certain chemical BC options, ACA was mandating that the insurance companies continue to offer, or expand to offer a set range of BC options. The Insurance company had no problem with this, Hobby Lobby desired coverage that did not offer certain options based upon their personal religious beliefs that despite what science indicates some of these options were not BC but abortive agents.

This sounds completely correct. Sans the ACA, Hobby Lobby could have done it, simply by finding an insurance company willing to make the changes. As the customer, and a major buyer of health insurance (I'm assuming this), it shouldn't have been a problem.

Unless... are their employees unionized? Insurance plans and what they cover are often part of labor negotiations.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This argument that the law forces employers to 'buy birth control' distorts the facts the way one distorts statistics to support an argument. You can define things differently and get a different picture.

Typically, the employer doesn't buy the employee's health insurance and then give it to them. The employer pays all or part of the employee's insurance premium. You can demonstrate this in a number of ways but the biggest one is the employer has no access to the employee's medical record, nor any direct say in the care provided. As such this is like telling someone what they can spend their paycheck on.

However, in the case of Hobby Lobby, they are a step closer to buying the insurance directly because they are self-insured. Large companies like Hobby Lobby sometimes act as the insurer rather than paying for insurance from an insurer. That's one reason the owner's Libertarian ideology feathers were ruffled. The government was adding more regulation to the insurance branch of Hobby Lobby's corporation.

But even in the case of self insurance, the hypocrisy of saying you don't want to buy birth control for an employee but you don't have any issue investing in companies that produce that same birth control is evidence their real gripe is being told the product of their self insurance business was to be further regulated.

They claim they are against something on religious grounds but Mother Jone's reporters have shown Hobby Lobby is really just trying to avoid additional regulation.

 

[marplots]

This argument that the law forces employers to 'buy birth control' distorts the facts the way one distorts statistics to support an argument. You can define things differently and get a different picture.

Typically, the employer doesn't buy the employee's health insurance and then give it to them. The employer pays all or part of the employee's insurance premium. You can demonstrate this in a number of ways but the biggest one is the employer has no access to the employee's medical record, nor any direct say in the care provided. As such this is like telling someone what they can spend their paycheck on.

However, in the case of Hobby Lobby, they are a step closer to buying the insurance directly because they are self-insured. Large companies like Hobby Lobby sometimes act as the insurer rather than paying for insurance from an insurer. That's one reason the owner's Libertarian ideology feathers were ruffled. The government was adding more regulation to the insurance branch of Hobby Lobby's corporation.

But even in the case of self insurance, the hypocrisy of saying you don't want to buy birth control for an employee but you don't have any issue investing in companies that produce that same birth control is evidence their real gripe is being told the product of their self insurance business was to be further regulated.

They claim they are against something on religious grounds but Mother Jone's reporters have shown Hobby Lobby is really just trying to avoid additional regulation.

The problem with that line of argument - the hypocrisy based on their investments - is that should they drop those financial instruments, the situation really hasn't improved much. Those who think they have no business meddling with employee insurance will still think so.

It may very well be that Hobby Lobby is inflating the issue to bring it to trial - becoming a "test case." Again, hypocritical, but a way to get a ruling. And who knows, they might win.

What would be interesting is to see who filed amicus briefs on the Hobby Lobby side of the issue.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The problem with that line of argument - the hypocrisy based on their investments - is that should they drop those financial instruments, the situation really hasn't improved much. Those who think they have no business meddling with employee insurance will still think so.

I don't get your point here.

It may very well be that Hobby Lobby is inflating the issue to bring it to trial - becoming a "test case." Again, hypocritical, but a way to get a ruling. And who knows, they might win.

What would be interesting is to see who filed amicus briefs on the Hobby Lobby side of the issue.

If they get a favorable ruling I'll withhold my taxes. As a self employed incorporated sole proprietor, I have a religious objection to the killing my taxes are used for.

As for who will file supporting opinions, that would be every anti-ACA GOPer with the ability to do so.

 

[SezMe]

The problem with that line of argument - the hypocrisy based on their investments - is that should they drop those financial instruments, the situation really hasn't improved much. Those who think they have no business meddling with employee insurance will still think so.

That's true but the topic here is the hypocrisy attendant to Hobby Lobby's position. If they changed their portfolio then this thread would go away and we could debate the merits of their case in another thread.