that Hobby Lobby decision...

[Spartanmack]

So should at will employees have any rights with respect to their employers? Or should they just quit and go find another job whenever their employer decides it doesn't want to follow some legal obligation it has with respect to workplace laws?

but whatever... I called them serfs and I know you can't really argue in support of the actual result in this case without sounded foolish, so you have to pick at other points.

of course they should have certain protections and they do. But we're not talking about rights - we're talking about benefits. Contraception is a choice - you have the right to choose to use it. You don't have the right to compel your employer to provide it for you. If an employee thinks they're being under-compensated then they shouldn't work for that employer - find one who will pay you what you're worth, or parish the thought, maybe forego that iPhone and spend that monthly data plan money on the pill if it's so important to you.

as for your second paragraph, that's just more of that thing you do to try to change the subject. we're arguing about the result in the case, you just don't like getting pimp-slapped for all the stupid shit you say.

 

[tinselwolverine]

As for food and other commodities, people prefer choice and will pay a premium for it, whereas when it comes to health insurance, they clearly prefer group discounts and are willing to give up some amount of choice for it.

Plus it seems to me that there would be inefficiencies in the delivery of food, furniture, lawn gnomes, etc., that would negate bulk purchase discounts; compared just paying people and they could buy their own food, furniture and lawn gnomes.

Health is a product that requires no to little delivery - yeah, ya gotta hand out the book with policy info right there in the office; that's about it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

houses are totally different. They are not a commodity product and would be much harder to gain any advantage - first, most sellers only have one house for sale so buyers don't have leverage to get the bulk discount. And people don't necessarily want to live in corporate communities where they see the same people they work with every day so buying whole developments from builders would not provide much perceived value to most employees - maybe they would value discounted realtor fees if an employer could negotiate a deal to steer employees to a particular firm but people don't trade in and out of houses very frequently - I think the average home buyer stays for 10 years so there probably wouldn't be much of a perceived benefit there.

As for food and other commodities, people prefer choice and will pay a premium for it, whereas when it comes to health insurance, they clearly prefer group discounts and are willing to give up some amount of choice for it.

The market would change if employers were mass-buying housing. If it were a requirement the way healthcare is, and had been for decades, everything would be different. You wouldn't see many individual homes or realtors. It would be company-owned apartment complexes and it would mostly be crap. There'd still be realtors for wealthy people, but there'd be so little money in middle- and lower-class, non-employer housing there probably wouldn't be realtors or much in the way of options on the other end of the spectrum.

 

[Monster]

Healthcare should be free for every citizen. It will never happen though no matter how liberal this country gets. Too much money in healthcare.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Plus it seems to me that there would be inefficiencies in the delivery of food, furniture, lawn gnomes, etc., that would negate bulk purchase discounts; compared just paying people and they could buy their own food, furniture and lawn gnomes.

Health is a product that requires no to little delivery - yeah, ya gotta hand out the book with policy info right there in the office; that's about it.

The booklet isn't the product. The service from the doctor and the medications and the medical equipment are the products, and that is distributed all over the country. In the case of food, the company would distribute plastic cards that you'd swipe at McDonalds, same as food stamps.

 

[tinselwolverine]

The booklet isn't the product. The service from the doctor and the medications and the medical equipment are the products, and that is distributed all over the country. In the case of food, the company would distribute plastic cards that you'd swipe at McDonalds, same as food stamps.

Well, the booklet is part of the product; like the assembly instructions are part of the product when a product needs to be assembled - you need the booklet in order to use the product - my point is it's the only thing the employer needs to distribute.

If the employer isn't delivering physical commodities but providing a card for the employee to use to make purchases - well, that's only a step or so away from what we already have!

The employer provides a paycheck, or direct deposit; in either case, the money goes into an account that typically has a card associated with it that can be swiped at McDonald's, or Ikea, or pretty much anywhere else.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Well, the booklet is part of the product; like the assembly instructions are part of the product when a product needs to be assembled - you need the booklet in order to use the product - my point is it's the only thing the employer needs to distribute.

If the employer isn't delivering physical commodities but providing a card for the employee to use to make purchases - well, that's only a step or so away from what we already have!

The employer provides a paycheck, or direct deposit; in either case, the money goes into an account that typically has a card associated with it that can be swiped at McDonald's, or Ikea, or pretty much anywhere else.

EDIT - One more thing the booklet is going to have is the policy itself which is a type of a contract, which outlines the agreements and obligations between the policy holder and the insurance provider - it's my opinion that a contract/product agreement is very much part of a product.

 

[tinselwolverine]

EDIT - One more thing the booklet is going to have is the policy itself which is a type of a contract, which outlines the agreements and obligations between the policy holder and the insurance provider - it's my opinion that a contract/product agreement is very much part of a product.

EDIT - LOL at myself - I quoted myself rather than selecting the EDIT button; but I wrote edit anyway!

 

[tinselwolverine]

EDIT - LOL at myself - I quoted myself rather than selecting the EDIT button; but I wrote edit anyway!

I just did it again!!!

 

[Sbee]

of course they should have certain protections and they do. But we're not talking about rights - we're talking about benefits. Contraception is a choice - you have the right to choose to use it. You don't have the right to compel your employer to provide it for you. If an employee thinks they're being under-compensated then they shouldn't work for that employer - find one who will pay you what you're worth, or parish the thought, maybe forego that iPhone and spend that monthly data plan money on the pill if it's so important to you.

as for your second paragraph, that's just more of that thing you do to try to change the subject. we're arguing about the result in the case, you just don't like getting pimp-slapped for all the stupid shit you say.

the owners of hobby lobby have choices too, they can use contraception or not, that's their choice. what they're doing is trying to create unnecessary hoops for employees to jump through in order to push their morality on them. they may not be able to affect the employees choice because they can purchase birth control on their own, but they can make it more difficult.

 

[Spartanmack]

The market would change if employers were mass-buying housing. If it were a requirement the way healthcare is, and had been for decades, everything would be different. You wouldn't see many individual homes or realtors. It would be company-owned apartment complexes and it would mostly be crap. There'd still be realtors for wealthy people, but there'd be so little money in middle- and lower-class, non-employer housing there probably wouldn't be realtors or much in the way of options on the other end of the spectrum.

As an employee, you would also need to see a perceived value to employer discounted housing that is greater than what you give up in choice. Granted buying a home is a complicated transaction and there are big costs associated with buying a house (realtor, appraisor, attorney's fees to name a few). But you probably wouldn't value the 1 time savings, especially if you ended up living in a crappy apartment next to the guy who occupies the next cube at work, and down the hall from the crazy dude you think keeps body parts in his freezer or the lady who watches her 17 cats on a webcam all day.

On the other hand, getting a recurring discount on health insurance you're employer buys in bulk (a discount you can't get on your own) appeals to just about everyone in the labor force. The one/few size(s) fits all/most works when it comes to health insurance. The problem with it in my mind is that employees tend to not educate themselves about the transaction or the product and perhaps the products were much better if consumers were more involved.

 

[tinselwolverine]

the owners of hobby lobby have choices too, they can use contraception or not, that's their choice. what they're doing is trying to create unnecessary hoops for employees to jump through in order to push their morality on them. they may not be able to affect the employees choice because they can purchase birth control on their own, but they can make it more difficult.

Fellas, regardless of your opinion on this, let's all get on the same page with regard to what is exactly going on here -

"They argued the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, violates the First Amendment and other federal laws protecting religious freedom because it requires them to provide coverage for contraceptives like the "morning-after pill," which the companies consider tantamount to abortion."

from CNN.

So my understand that Hobby Lobby is fine with paying the co-pay for coverage of other types of birth control.

 

[Spartanmack]

the owners of hobby lobby have choices too, they can use contraception or not, that's their choice. what they're doing is trying to create unnecessary hoops for employees to jump through in order to push their morality on them. they may not be able to affect the employees choice because they can purchase birth control on their own, but they can make it more difficult.

It's not any harder - they just have to swipe their personal credit card at the pharmacy instead of their insurance card when they pick up the contraceptives they choose to use. But you are right about one thing - just like the employee, the owners of HL (and other employers) have a choice and they are exercising their right to make that choice. They are under no obligation to make it easier for their employees to buy anything their employees may want.

 

[TheVictors]

They have 50% off on Framing all the time and I've framed a lot of shit there.

Anyone up on the religious leanings at Michael's..?

 

[tinselwolverine]

They have 50% off on Framing all the time and I've framed a lot of shit there.

Do they really play religious music in the store, like Jeffrey Toobin and Carol Costello are saying in that CNN clip I posted a few posts back?

I don't do a lot of custom framing, so it would be unusual for me to either Hobby Lobby or Michaels...

 

[Gulo Blue]

As an employee, you would also need to see a perceived value to employer discounted housing that is greater than what you give up in choice. Granted buying a home is a complicated transaction and there are big costs associated with buying a house (realtor, appraisor, attorney's fees to name a few). But you probably wouldn't value the 1 time savings, especially if you ended up living in a crappy apartment next to the guy who occupies the next cube at work, and down the hall from the crazy dude you think keeps body parts in his freezer or the lady who watches her 17 cats on a webcam all day.

On the other hand, getting a recurring discount on health insurance you're employer buys in bulk (a discount you can't get on your own) appeals to just about everyone in the labor force. The one/few size(s) fits all/most works when it comes to health insurance. The problem with it in my mind is that employees tend to not educate themselves about the transaction or the product and perhaps the products were much better if consumers were more involved.

bolding mine

It depends on what the alternative is. If housing was a mandated employee benefit for full time employees with no offset for turning it down, then definitely, people would live in free crappy company housing over paying for housing. If there's a credit provided to people that decline company offered housing, then the split would depend on how big that offset is. ...and keep in mind, if companies supplied housing, paychecks would be lower.

I agree on the part I bolded being a part of the problem. But it's very much related to the concentration of decision making power I complain about on this topic. Consumers don't educate themselves because their opinions don't matter that much anyway. They just take what's offered and the pros and cons of an insurance plan get bundled with the pros and cons of the job they decide to take or not take. One less chance for a consumer to differentiate what they approve of and what they don't approve of. If I work at an insurance company, I'm going with the cheapest customer service possible because customers don't pick by product, employers do, and they aren't going to take customer service into consideration because they know when they give someone a job offer, they're not going to turn down a job over the customer service of the healthcare company.

It's a horrible system.

 

[Spartanmack]

Fellas, regardless of your opinion on this, let's all get on the same page with regard to what is exactly going on here -

"They argued the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, violates the First Amendment and other federal laws protecting religious freedom because it requires them to provide coverage for contraceptives like the "morning-after pill," which the companies consider tantamount to abortion."

from CNN.

So my understand that Hobby Lobby is fine with paying the co-pay for coverage of other types of birth control.

good point - and for the record, I feel the same way. Personally, I object to the abortion pill on moral grounds but I have no moral objection to birth control. What I object to re: birth control is any mandate requiring employers to provide it - I have the same objection to mandating employers to provide health insurance.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Well, the booklet is part of the product; like the assembly instructions are part of the product when a product needs to be assembled - you need the booklet in order to use the product - my point is it's the only thing the employer needs to distribute.

If the employer isn't delivering physical commodities but providing a card for the employee to use to make purchases - well, that's only a step or so away from what we already have!

The employer provides a paycheck, or direct deposit; in either case, the money goes into an account that typically has a card associated with it that can be swiped at McDonald's, or Ikea, or pretty much anywhere else.

Yeah, but the employer has no bargaining power when they hand you cash. With the food card, they'd be able to negotiate prices with food providers. You'd get an approved list of places where your employer has negotiated rates. Decisions about what people actually end up eating then get made between employers and providers. You can eat "free" McDonalds or pay out of pocket for a better choice, effectively paying twice since the money comes out of your paycheck one way or another. The fact that you could pay out of pocket for something better doesn't change the fact that there would be a massive swing to whatever food options the employers pick.

 

[Michchamp]

good point - and for the record, I feel the same way. Personally, I object to the abortion pill on moral grounds but I have no moral objection to birth control.

I really, really, really hope someday you work for a corporation held by a handful of devout Muslims, who try to force Sharia Law on some aspect of your benefits package, and see whether you say "well, I don't see anything wrong with this, after all, I was a fan of the decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores.

What I object to re: birth control is any mandate requiring employers to provide it - I have the same objection to mandating employers to provide health insurance.

that's really another soapbox for you to stand up on and bitch about.

yes, every employee should become experts on health insurance and figure it out for themselves... and that's realistic and consistent with your views on everything else... we should work 40+ hours per week, while also becoming experts on and conducting inspections on everything from the food we eat to the cars we buy. Government should have nothing to do with it... and anytime government gets involved = bad.

 

[Sbee]

It's not any harder - they just have to swipe their personal credit card at the pharmacy instead of their insurance card when they pick up the contraceptives they choose to use. But you are right about one thing - just like the employee, the owners of HL (and other employers) have a choice and they are exercising their right to make that choice. They are under no obligation to make it easier for their employees to buy anything their employees may want.

of course adding financial cost is making something harder. it's more difficult and costly to pay for something than have it included in your coverage. you know better than that.

How far should employers choice go into the personal life of the employees? what if they're christian scientists who don't believe in vaccination? should they not have to cover that? how about fertility treatment, blood transfusions?

it's just a way to protest shit you don't like, to impose your morality on someone else like all religious zealots try to do.