that Hobby Lobby decision...

[tinselwolverine]

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.

It sounds inefficient with all the constant haggling about business that isn't part of the company's core business.

I expect that's the reason it's not done more than it is.

Also providing free or cheap crap that employees don't want doesn't sound to me like a very effective way of attracting and retaining quality employees.

But providing health benefits has always been viewed as a very effective way to attract and retain quality employees, which is the primary reason it has been so widely done, for so long.

If a person has a fundamental problem with accepting health care through their employer, a person has every right to reject it.

But that person is going to have to get health care from somewhere, because to not do so is now against the law.

 

[Sbee]

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.



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.

regardless the government will scramble and make birth control available and free for those who work for zealots. there is a vested interest in helping those who don't want to get pregnant avoid getting pregnant.

 

[Spartanmack]

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.

It's actually the exact opposite - it's you who is imposing your morals on someone else's checkbook. Contraception is an elective choice, not a need and you don't have a right to it. I'm not telling anyone they can't use contraception - I'm saying an employer shouldn't be compelled to provide it. If you want it, pay for it or go to work for an employer that chooses to provide it as part of their compensation package. It's pretty simple.

 

[Sbee]

It sounds inefficient with all the constant haggling about business that isn't part of the company's core business.

I expect that's the reason it's not done more than it is.

companies all have to do things that aren't part of their own business, that's why they have different departments, HR, Accounting, finance, etc.

 

[Spartanmack]

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.

This is dumber than the other post. If you were paying any attention, you would probably know I would be more likely to say something like "well, I have freewill and I object to these practices so I'll take my skills and go work somewhere else."

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.

not sure what you mean by this - I was talking about the benefits and trade-offs of employer provided health care (should they chose to provide it as part of their compensation package) vs. individuals buying it on their own. One of the reasons it is good is that it's a complicated product, the trade-off of that is that consumers (most of them happily, probably) don't inform themselves about the product they are effectively buying. This just sounds like more of that changing the subject you like to do. Have fun with your latest straw man - I have not interest in wasting more time defending myself against things you think I said.

 

[tinselwolverine]

companies all have to do things that aren't part of their own business, that's why they have different departments, HR, Accounting, finance, etc.

I don't know that essential business operations are the same as negotiating with McDonald's for Happy Meals.

 

[Sbee]

It's actually the exact opposite - it's you who is imposing your morals on someone else's checkbook. Contraception is an elective choice, not a need and you don't have a right to it. I'm not telling anyone they can't use contraception - I'm saying an employer shouldn't be compelled to provide it. If you want it, pay for it or go to work for an employer that chooses to provide it as part of their compensation package. It's pretty simple.

I'm not imposing my morals, i'm not compelling anyone to use birth control. I would compel the employer to provide full healthcare coverage and not open the door for them to pick and choose what services the employee chooses to use, that decision can be left between the employee and doctor.

let's say that an employer doesn't want to cover assisted reproductive therapy for couples with fertility issues. your solution is to just find another job or shell out tens of thousands of dollars?

 

[Spartanmack]

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.

The employer isn't adding any financial cost - the employee who wants the product is adding the financial cost. Saying they aren't going to pay for something the employee wants isn't an intrusion into their personal life. If an employee is worth X, then they should get paid X and spend it how they choose. They don't get to say pay me in Y and Z such that Y and Z combined equals to X. If the employer chooses to offer alternatives equal to X and the employee likes that, then fine with me.

and don't forget, I'm not morally opposed to birth control and I also said I was opposed to mandating health insurance, not just the abortion pill and birth control. my objections to health insurance and contraceptive mandates are based on what I believe are elective choices and individuals responsibility, not religious or even personal morals. Your religious zealot stuff may win you points with chump, but it's just nonsense.

 

[Sbee]

The employer isn't adding any financial cost - the employee who wants the product is adding the financial cost. Saying they aren't going to pay for something the employee wants isn't an intrusion into their personal life. If an employee is worth X, then they should get paid X and spend it how they choose. They don't get to say pay me in Y and Z such that Y and Z combined equals to X. If the employer chooses to offer alternatives equal to X and the employee likes that, then fine with me.

and don't forget, I'm not morally opposed to birth control and I also said I was opposed to mandating health insurance, not just the abortion pill and birth control. my objections to health insurance and contraceptive mandates are based on what I believe are elective choices and individuals responsibility, not religious or even personal morals. Your religious zealot stuff may win you points with chump, but it's just nonsense.

saying that you'll provide health insurance but then pick and choose what you want to cover based on your own morality is imposing that on your employee. health coverage is part of the employees compensation, it's covers a wide range of services, what you want is to allow the employer to line item veto what they don't like. birth control is the topic of the day but there are a lot of other things in here like vaccinations, some people object to those on a religious basis. I don't think we should open that door based on their ideology.

 

[TheVictors]

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...

Not that I can say. It's classic shopping musik that takes a pop song, without lyrics and slows it down so you shop longer. All the employees are super nice and friendly, if not at times a little ...slow.

Good Christian people.

I will have to ask Mary the next time I'm in framing. She was flirting a little with me when I had my Desmond signed pic framed a few weeks back.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm not imposing my morals, i'm not compelling anyone to use birth control. I would compel the employer to provide full healthcare coverage and not open the door for them to pick and choose what services the employee chooses to use, that decision can be left between the employee and doctor.

let's say that an employer doesn't want to cover assisted reproductive therapy for couples with fertility issues. your solution is to just find another job or shell out tens of thousands of dollars?

whether you understand it or not, you're imposing your morals by compelling someone to pay for what you consider to be full health care coverage. The employer should get to pick and choose what they buy - it's their money. Again, if an employee is worth X, they should get paid X. The employee or the government shouldn't force them to pay them in some combination of Y, Z or other forms that add up to X. If the employee doesn't like what's offered, they have several options - they can find an employer who will give them compensation in that form, they can take their comp in all cash and buy their own insurance or they can take the coverage and buy their own birth control.

 

[Sbee]

whether you understand it or not, you're imposing your morals by compelling someone to pay for what you consider to be full health care coverage. The employer should get to pick and choose what they buy - it's their money. If an employee is worth X, they should get paid X. The employee or the government shouldn't force them to pay them in some combination of Y, Z or other forms that add up to X. If the employee doesn't like what's offered, they have several options - they can find an employer who will give them compensation in that form, they can take their comp in all cash and buy their own insurance or they can take the coverage and buy their own birth control.

chicken or egg, healthcare coverage is part of the employee's compensation, they should be able to choose what services they use under that coverage.

regardless, birth control will be covered through some government agency. hopefully that will piss the hobby lobby's of the world off. the bigger issue is other services that they could consider objectionable.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Good Christian people.

I will have to ask Mary the next time I'm in framing. She was flirting a little with me when I had my Desmond signed pic framed a few weeks back.

Mary?

You don't mean THE Mary Herself, do you?

 

[Spartanmack]

saying that you'll provide health insurance but then pick and choose what you want to cover based on your own morality is imposing that on your employee.

No, it's not and only and entitled, "elitist" who thinks they know what's best for people or a spoiled brat would say that it is. Telling a private employer that they must offer contraception in their compensation package is imposing your morals on the employer.

 

[TheVictors]

No surprise here -- http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

Can't say I've ever read Forbes, citing Mother Jones but facts be facts ...

No, just Mary ...she likes football. Said it's one reason she likes working at HL - every Sunday off.

 

[Spartanmack]

No surprise here -- http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

Can't say I've ever read Forbes, citing Mother Jones but facts be facts ...

No, just Mary ...she likes football. Said it's one reason she likes working at HL - every Sunday off.

The author does a good job of making it seem like hypocrisy but HL isn't profiting from these products. 401k plan assets are not the property of the employer and the employer doesn't profit from appreciation in those investments. Their employees own those accounts, make all of the investment elections and earn all of the returns from them. Most 401ks have investment options that allow participants to avoid investments they object to. It doesn't say whether the HL plan does or not, but if it doesn't, HL may be unaware of this "problem" within their funds. But if they do offer such an investment it's up to the participants to choose it. If anything, the author should be commending HL for not forcing their morality onto their employees by limiting the investment choices participants can make with their own money.

 

[mhughes0021]

I think its funny that a company and ALL the republicans are sooooooo happy about this decision. WHy would you be exstatic that you don't have to cover your employees? Sounds like a shitty company to me.... not surprised the republicans are exstatic....its a shitty party.

As far as the decision goes...I have a hard time deciding for the company when religion is just man made fantasy in the first place. So a company says they don't have to pay for contraception because a fairytale told them what?....that unprotected sex is bad? What exactly about their religion says they shouldn't pay for preventative measures taken by their employees?

 

[Spartanmack]

chicken or egg, healthcare coverage is part of the employee's compensation, they should be able to choose what services they use under that coverage.

regardless, birth control will be covered through some government agency. hopefully that will piss the hobby lobby's of the world off. the bigger issue is other services that they could consider objectionable.

What? Chicken or egg? What are you talking about? You seem to have gone from not understanding simple concepts (like who should choose what forms employers pay employee compensation or that compelling employers to bend to your will rather than giving them a choice of what to do with their money is forcing your morals onto them) to blurting out random nonsense.

 

[jwlcosu]

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.

Keep hoping, Dipstick. That probably won't happen. And if it did, he'd have the option of leaving, of seeking employment elsewhere. Any woman who is unsatisfied with the sixteen or so contraceptive options that HL will continue to pay for can choose to take their talents elsewhere. That's the way it works. Or, if she really, really, really needs a Plan B fix, she could, oh I don't know, buy it herself? Maybe get her boyfriend to step up?

 

[Sbee]

What? Chicken or egg? What are you talking about? You seem to have gone from not understanding simple concepts (like who should choose what forms employers pay employee compensation or that compelling employers to bend to your will rather than giving them a choice of what to do with their money is forcing your morals onto them) to blurting out random nonsense.

it's a circular argument, we can keep going round and round.