NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

Liatris2010 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

JCbride2015 said:

sarahbear31 said:

Liatris2010 said:

Also, going back to the Jewish/Muslim ban on pork. Can a Jewish employer deny coverage for a heart-valve transplant? They usually use a pig heart valve. Does using your insurance for such a thing violate the religious freedom of your Jewish employer? Are you causing him to sin because he paid part of your premium? I suppose they can use a heart valve from another animal, but pig has the lowest rejection rate. How would getting slightly less good medical treatment because of your employer's beliefs make you feel?

I'm honestly not sure how the Jewish faith tradition feels about providing that, and I haven't heard many responses to this ruling from Jewish leaders.

If I were to find out that was the case for me, my husband, or my kids, then I would respect his/her religious tradition as I would expect them to respect mine.

Sorry, I know I said I wouldn't come back. Bitch-slaps are allowed.

But how far would you let this go? What if your husband would die without the transplant? Would you really "respect his/her religious tradition" then? Honestly, I find it hard to believe you'd just shrug your shoulders and say, no problem, I respect your religious tradition.

Having autonomy over what I put in my body feels that way to me.

I'll answer you when you finish studying.

I'm curious and I'm not studying, do I have to wait too?

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

@Liatris2010, you called my bluff. I have a call with a client shortly. Will answer soon, I promise.

Liatris2010 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

@Liatris2010, you called my bluff. I have a call with a client shortly. Will answer soon, I promise.

No worries

chibiyui · July 2014

I will comment that I think you've been very respectful, and I appreciate that.

I just really hate that this is a debatable issue.

lyndausvi · July 2014

anybody wonder if insurance companies will want to increase premiums on companies who do not cover BC at all?

I'm sure in HL case not covering 4 BC's wouldn't change much (again there are other options they do cover) but not covering ANY has a higher risk of pregnancy which = higher costs overall.

Sadly that will just be passed on to the poor employees, just curious.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

Thanks for the nice comments, ladies.

Honestly, as a Catholic, I've seen what a mess this is and how frustrating it is for us when people think we are whack jobs for this. I'll be totally honest ... if there was a similar ruling regarding porcine valves, I'd find out if we are affected. My husband works for a small consulting firm (granted, the owner is Christian), so I'd research to see if something is no longer covered. If that were the case, we'd see if he was covered under my plan or find out if we need to get an additional insurance plan.

But if another faith is going through the scrutiny and the fight that Catholics are going through, although it would negatively impact us, I would respect it.

bethsmiles · July 2014

sarahbear31 said: Thanks for the nice comments, ladies.

Honestly, as a Catholic, I've seen what a mess this is and how frustrating it is for us when people think we are whack jobs for this. I'll be totally honest ... if there was a similar ruling regarding porcine valves, I'd find out if we are affected. My husband works for a small consulting firm (granted, the owner is Christian), so I'd research to see if something is no longer covered. If that were the case, we'd see if he was covered under my plan or find out if we need to get an additional insurance plan.

But if another faith is going through the scrutiny and the fight that Catholics are going through, although it would negatively impact us, I would respect it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But why can't religions respect that not everyone believes the same thing as them? Why should I have to respect HL (a corporation, not a person) when they clearly can't respect my rights and beliefs as a peson? It seems pretty clear to me that HL doesn't think respect is a two-way street. All of their employees have to respect their religious beliefs (that evidence shows isn't even that sincerly held when it doesn't financially benefit them) but they don't have to respect the rights or beliefs of their employees?

daria24 · July 2014

Birth control, aside, here is an example of the impact of this (COMPLETELY SHITTY) ruling http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/hobby-lobby-is-already-creating-new-religious-demands-on-obama/373853/ Cliff's Notes (or whatever the fluck you Canadians call them): The Obama Administration is planning to sign an executive order banning any federal contractors from discriminating against potential hires/employees based on sexual orientation/gender identity. There is a petition to get a religious exemption added to this executive order. If my tax dollars are paying for you to offer social services/build bridges/supply the toilet paper for the White House, I am going to lose my shit if you get to not hire a transgender person just because your religion says it's totes cool to discriminate.

Liatris2010 · July 2014

@sarahbear31
Thanks for that reply. I think I have a harder time swallowing it than you do because I am not a religious person. I don't want to abide the rule of one faith, abiding the rules of all of them is unimaginable. As someone who thinks a belief in god is about as rational as one in the tooth fairy, using your religion to limit my choices is just not okay with me. If you want to limit your own choices, by all means, but when it affects me, I am mad about it. I feel like the freedom to practice religion is getting in the way of my freedom to not practice it. For me it is about more than medical procedures and copays, it is fundamental rights. And I guess it is the same for you. I just wish they weren't at odds. Employer sponsored health insurance is silly, why can't we have single payer like the rest of the developed world?

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

Honest question - Since when has it been a right for birth control to be covered in an employer's insurance plan?

chibiyui · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:
Honest question - Since when has it been a right for birth control to be covered in an employer's insurance plan?

Why shouldn't it be a right?

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

Liatris2010, you're welcome. And I agree that employer sponsored healthcare creates more issues than it's worth.

penguin44 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

Honest question - Since when has it been a right for birth control to be covered in an employer's insurance plan?

I have taken BC since I was 16. Not to use it for "sins," but because I had such awful periods that I couldn't go to school for 3-4 days every month and I would get migraines. My mom actually had to ask my pediatrician to let me go on BC because he thought I was being dramatic. Seriously.

I would have not been able to continue going to school if our family insurance didn't cover BC.

bethsmiles · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

Honest question - Since when has it been a right for birth control to be covered in an employer's insurance plan?

The UN declared access to contraception a universal human right in 2012. Having it not covered in an employer's insurance plan will absolutly decrease access for some women who might not be able to afford it otherwise.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

bethsmiles said:

sarahbear31 said:

Honest question - Since when has it been a right for birth control to be covered in an employer's insurance plan?

The UN declared access to contraception a universal human right in 2012. Having it not covered in an employer's insurance plan will absolutly decrease access for some women who might not be able to afford it otherwise.

That is the kind of answer I was looking for, thanks. I may not agree with it, but I can't argue with it

daria24 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

Honest question - Since when has it been a right for birth control to be covered in an employer's insurance plan?

Probably since the past 50 years have shown that BC has been the greatest factor in improving the economic condition of women (at least in the US). Here is an article about that, with links to academic studies http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/the-economic-impact-of-the-pill/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

Here's something else that I think is misrepresented. Hobby Lobby isn't forcing anyone to believe what they do. Their stores are closed on Sundays; nobody makes the employees go to church. They do not cover 4 types of contraception; that doesn't mean that people have to stop using it.

I don't see how this equates forcing someone else to believe in your faith.

chibiyui · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:
Here's something else that I think is misrepresented. Hobby Lobby isn't forcing anyone to believe what they do. Their stores are closed on Sundays; nobody makes the employees go to church. They do not cover 4 types of contraception; that doesn't mean that people have to stop using it.

I don't see how this equates forcing someone else to believe in your faith.

It's not forcing them to believe so much as forcing their beliefs. They believe those 4 types of BC are sinful, so while they aren't banning it out right, they're making it as difficult as possible to use that BC.

An IUD can cost 600 dollars and up. There can also be surgical fees. If a woman works at Hobby Lobby making 13 dollars an hour, once taxes are figured in, she might bring home 1200 dollars. That's assuming she gets full 40 weeks, a rarity in retail. Half her monthly income would go towards this one procedure, out of pocket. That is undue hardship. For many women, the cost would make that impossible for them to get.

Liatris2010 · July 2014

It isn't forcing anyone to believe it, but it is limiting them to medications approved by the faith. Why should I be limited by a faith that is not mine?

lyndausvi · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

Here's something else that I think is misrepresented. Hobby Lobby isn't forcing anyone to believe what they do. Their stores are closed on Sundays; nobody makes the employees go to church. They do not cover 4 types of contraception; that doesn't mean that people have to stop using it.

I don't see how this equates forcing someone else to believe in your faith.

This isn't even about HL for me. They do have other BC options they do pay for. It's almost like when some insurance companies only paying for certain meds and not others for cost reasons. If they don't cover the one your doctor prescribed most people pick one that is covered and move on. Sometimes it's not covered and I just pay out of pocket because I want the certain drug.

Nope this ruling as far greater implications and much bigger than HL not covering 4 birth controls drugs. An entire Pandora's box as been opened. It's scary. Very scary.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

chibiyui, this is an honest question. I haven't seen anyone working for Hobby Lobby making any protests regarding the decisions. Have you? And it's not like they no longer offer that coverage; it was never available. I am just curious what the people who work at Hobby Lobby think, because I haven't heard anything.

daria24 · July 2014

lyndausvi said:

sarahbear31 said:

Here's something else that I think is misrepresented. Hobby Lobby isn't forcing anyone to believe what they do. Their stores are closed on Sundays; nobody makes the employees go to church. They do not cover 4 types of contraception; that doesn't mean that people have to stop using it.

I don't see how this equates forcing someone else to believe in your faith.

This isn't even about HL for me. They do have other BC options they do pay for. It's almost like when some insurance companies only paying for certain meds and not others for cost reasons. If they don't cover the one your doctor prescribed most people pick one that is covered and move on. Sometimes it's not covered and I just pay out of pocket because I want the certain drug.

Nope this ruling as far greater implications and much bigger than HL not covering 4 birth controls drugs. An entire Pandora's box as been opened. It's scary. Very scary.

-------

This is also where I'm sitting. Yes, it bothers me that HL is outright ignoring actual science, but in the long run-not covering 4 types of BC will most likely not have an enormous effect on employees. FTR, my insurance, courtesy of a very liberal, pro-choice closely held company, does not cover an IUD because I have a HDP. IF I happened to meet that $8k deductible (which hopefully I never will) then it would be covered. As much as I want an IUD, I choose my deductible-free pills instead.

I am much more upset about the furthering of Citizens United to give corporations personhood, and now, a religion.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

Don't get me wrong; I totally get why y'all are upset. I honestly just wanted to share some insight about where the "other side" is coming from.

Sugargirl1019 · July 2014

Y'all are doing a fantastic job at this debate. Love it.

cupcait927 · July 2014

daria24 said:

lyndausvi said:

sarahbear31 said:

Here's something else that I think is misrepresented. Hobby Lobby isn't forcing anyone to believe what they do. Their stores are closed on Sundays; nobody makes the employees go to church. They do not cover 4 types of contraception; that doesn't mean that people have to stop using it.

I don't see how this equates forcing someone else to believe in your faith.

This isn't even about HL for me. They do have other BC options they do pay for. It's almost like when some insurance companies only paying for certain meds and not others for cost reasons. If they don't cover the one your doctor prescribed most people pick one that is covered and move on. Sometimes it's not covered and I just pay out of pocket because I want the certain drug.

Nope this ruling as far greater implications and much bigger than HL not covering 4 birth controls drugs. An entire Pandora's box as been opened. It's scary. Very scary.

-------

This is also where I'm sitting. Yes, it bothers me that HL is outright ignoring actual science, but in the long run-not covering 4 types of BC will most likely not have an enormous effect on employees. FTR, my insurance, courtesy of a very liberal, pro-choice closely held company, does not cover an IUD because I have a HDP. IF I happened to meet that $8k deductible (which hopefully I never will) then it would be covered. As much as I want an IUD, I choose my deductible-free pills instead.

I am much more upset about the furthering of Citizens United to give corporations personhood, and now, a religion.

FWIW, your IUD technically IS covered, just not at a copay or free. You would pay a contracted rate for your IUD under your HDHP plan, which, while expensive, is still cheaper than paying for the IUD out of pocket with no insurance. Trust me, I work in insurance and have an HDHP so I get that shit is still expensive but it's significantly better than going without insurance at all.

chibiyui · July 2014

Google doesn't turn up much of anything about what the actual employees think.

I would guess that opinion is split, and employees where probably told not to talk about it. There might even be widespread relief, because the head of Hobby Lobby said he would shut down if the Court didn't rule his way. I'm sure in the next few weeks, employees of both sides will speak out.

Even if they all agreed with it though, wouldn't make it right. Back in the day, many women were against the women's suffrage movement.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

chibiyui said:

Google doesn't turn up much of anything about what the actual employees think. I would guess that opinion is split, and employees where probably told not to talk about it. There might even be widespread relief, because the head of Hobby Lobby said he would shut down if the Court didn't rule his way. I'm sure in the next few weeks, employees of both sides will speak out. Even if they all agreed with it though, wouldn't make it right. Back in the day, many women were against the women's suffrage movement.

I was just curious, that's all. My searches returned jack squat as well.

lyndausvi · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

chibiyui, this is an honest question. I haven't seen anyone working for Hobby Lobby making any protests regarding the decisions. Have you? And it's not like they no longer offer that coverage; it was never available. I am just curious what the people who work at Hobby Lobby think, because I haven't heard anything.

I've only been to HL once in Indianapolis. I would say more than 50% of the staff were near or over child bearing age. It could well be a non-issue personally so many of them might not publicly protesting for fear of retaliation.

Supposedly HL's wages are on the high end for retailers. Not sure if that is true, but it would be enough incentive for some people to keep their mouths shut.

daria24 · July 2014

lyndausvi said:

sarahbear31 said:

chibiyui, this is an honest question. I haven't seen anyone working for Hobby Lobby making any protests regarding the decisions. Have you? And it's not like they no longer offer that coverage; it was never available. I am just curious what the people who work at Hobby Lobby think, because I haven't heard anything.

I've only been to HL once in Indianapolis. I would say more than 50% of the staff were near or over child bearing age. It could well be a non-issue personally so many of them might not publicly protesting for fear of retaliation.

Supposedly HL's wages are on the high end for retailers. Not sure if that is true, but it would be enough incentive for some people to keep their mouths shut.

The only time I ever went into one, nearly all the employees were Mennonite. Not exactly the demographic crying out for a Mirena.

And yes, HL pays very well http://www.christianpost.com/news/hobby-lobby-raises-minimum-wage-to-14-for-full-time-employees-94233/

chibiyui · July 2014

Hobby Lobby paying decent hourly wage does not excuse nor make their decision not to cover those 4 types of contraception any better.

NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

Re: NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

Choose Another Board

Search Boards