Hobby Lobby Case: About Labor Rights

[HomerJS]

Insurance... and birth control. Am I missing what one has to do with the other? Why don't we have to buy food insurance to pay for daily meals? Maybe because you're always going to be using it and there's no economic model where it makes sense.

Insurance for a daily consumable is quite the bureaucratic contrivance. That's the first mistake.



Birth control is not free. The end user may not clearly see a price tag, but everyone is still paying for it. Tact it onto insurance and the price of insurance is higher. You or your employer pay more for insurance. Your wages make up the difference. Or maybe we raise the price of the products employers sell, and you buy.

You're still paying for it, it's just the payment structure is twisted and convoluted. A bureaucratic nightmare with hidden costs and many hands in the cookie jar, that's the second mistake.

Your employer should have NO RELATION to your birth control. OR your health care. Make that the damn law and CUT the bureaucracy!

Ultimately it is less expensive for birth control vs unintended pregnancy.

 

[kia75]

Not really. When motherjones listed mutual funds that contain large companies, held in many funds, who primary revenue isn't birth control drugs.

The companies that motherjones is listing are the following:
Pfizer - a DOW 30, S&P 500 company
Forest laboratories - S&P 500 company
Aetna - S&P 500 company
Humana - S&P 500 company
AstraZeneca - the tenth largest company on the london exchange
Teva Pharmaceutical - top 15 pharmaceutical company in the world
Bayer - have you heard of aspirin?

Since for most mutual funds, these company would at most make up single digit percentage and then birth control relate items don't move the needle at all for any of these companies. You're looking at something like 0.0001 of the 401K supports birth control drugs.

Not really, Health insurance has many uses involving many procedures whose primary purpose isn't birth control.

Asthma
Flu
Broken bones
vitamin deficiencies
yearly checkups
Mental Health
appendicitis

Since for most procedures, Birth control is irrelevant, birth control related items wouldn't move the needle for health insurance. You're looking at some infinitesimally small people using the birth control methods in question.



Again, nobody is arguing that Hobby Lobby is morally responsible for it's employees investments. That'd be as foolish as arguing Hobby Lobby is morally responsible for it's employees health care choices.

It's that every single argument against birth control applies to these investments, only doubly so because Hobby Lobby gets to specifically choose their investments, while insurance is a government-mandated choice. No matter what Hobby Lobby says no doctor will ever claim these forms of birth control are anything like abortifacents but some of the medicine those companies produce are used only for actual abortions.

 

[nehalem256]

Ultimately it is less expensive for birth control vs unintended pregnancy.

So why did the left spend years complaining that not all health plans covered BC?

Don't insurance companies want to make money?:hmm:

 

[MrPickins]

Hobby Lobby was paying for 23 different kinds of birth control. They just objected to a few types of birth control because they were considered a form of abortion. This is just the court not wanting to be reasonable.

It is not reasonable for a company to make medical decisions for its employees, especially based on the companies "religious beliefs".

Next thing you know, a Jewish or Muslim company will specify that it's employees won't be covered for heart valve replacement if the source is porcine.

 

[smackababy]

It is not reasonable for a company to make medical decisions for its employees, especially based on the companies "religious beliefs".

Next thing you know, a Jewish or Muslim company will specify that it's employees won't be covered for heart valve replacement if the source is porcine.

As crazy as we like to all believe Muslims are, their rules concerning food law has a clause that if nothing else is available, it is acceptable to break the rules. So, in the case of a heart valve replacement, if another cannot be reasonable obtained, I think a porcine valve would be perfectly acceptable. I am not aware of any Jewish loophole though.

 

[piasabird]

I am not taking a moral stance, I am just in favor of Hobby Lobby's rights as a business. I don't recall the right to an abortion of birth control being in the constitution. Hobby Lobby still offers birth control in their health insurance. What is the big deal?

 

[smackababy]

I am not taking a moral stance, I am just in favor of Hobby Lobby's rights as a business. I don't recall the right to an abortion of birth control being in the constitution. Hobby Lobby still offers birth control in their health insurance. What is the big deal?

Hobby Lobby has that right already. They can choose to not give their employees healthcare. It might eat into their profits a bit, but such is the price of taking moral stances.

The problem with this issue is that Hobby Lobby is trying to use their moral stance as grounds to not cover certain things, but the same moral stance isn't applied to other parts of their business AND they are, as a company, trying to determine what their employees healthcare should be. The first part is just typical hypocrisy and the latter is incredibly stupid to even be considered a good thing to let happen. Should we allow companies, at their "moral discretion" to determine which healthcare options they should provide?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I am not taking a moral stance, I am just in favor of Hobby Lobby's rights as a business. I don't recall the right to an abortion of birth control being in the constitution. Hobby Lobby still offers birth control in their health insurance. What is the big deal?

First, it isn't an abortion, it's Plan B type drugs which doctors universally agree are not abortifacients as they do not induce a miscarriage, they prevent ovulation or fertilization. Doctors know more about drugs than Hobby Lobby's owners, so their expertise on medical matters is probably more important to listen to.

Second, you may not recall the right to an "abortion of birth control" in the Constitution; I'm not recalling the rights of a business being spelled out in the Constitution. Could you point me to the relevant article or amendment spelling out what rights corporations have?

 

[werepossum]

This just further illustrates how stupid this is. Whatever the beliefs are of the HL owners are, they need to follow them and leave everybody else alone.

It's an odd sort of hypocrisy. Basically Hobbly Lobbes is arguing if Hobby Lobby does not prevent it's employees from using their own health care as they wish then Hobby Lobby has no moral standing arguing it should not be forced to provide those products.

Note that would require eliminating the vast majority of healthcare insurance, probably only the specialty plans for Catholics would remain. That means No Birth Control what-so-ever. Do you really want to be in the position of arguing that Hobby Lobby has an obligation to morally decide the health care of their employees? How would Hobby Lobby enforcing it's principles on it's employees own health care ( admittedly, Hobby Lobby pays a portion, but mostly the employe's money) be a good thing?

The funny thing is that there are plenty of 401k investment vehicles that Hobby Lobby could provide that don't include profiting from abortions. Hobby Lobby instead specifically chooses to provide investment vehicles that do. That really isn't true of Health Insurance. There are for the most part the state-regulated insurance policies that provide for birth control, and the Catholic insurance policies that don't. Hobby Lobby is basically asking for a brand new sort of insurance policy that applies only to itself. And it's doing this despite being perfectly fine with those insurance policies for over the past decade.

As you just expertly pointed out (thank you for that, btw) Hobby Lobby's position is laughably bad. No one is pointing out that Hobby Lobby should be morally responsible for what they invest their 401k in because that's as ridiculous as saying Hobby Lobby should be morally responsible for how their employees treat their health care. Much like Hobby Lobby can't say how I choose to spend my money (Home and food, hookers and blow, it's my choice) Hobby Lobby can't say how I invest my money or utilize my health care.

To a certain extent Hobby Lobby agrees with all of us that what employees do with their own perks is there business. It has yet to pull the investment plans it's offering that profit from abortions.

Both you guys are missing Hobby Lobby's argument, which is that they are being forced to provide the birth control they consider religiously offensive. Hobby Lobby does not object to the employee buying these products, they object to being forced to buy them for the employee. I don't find the argument particularly persuasive, but I can see their argument and concede they have a point.

Insurance... and birth control. Am I missing what one has to do with the other? Why don't we have to buy food insurance to pay for daily meals? Maybe because you're always going to be using it and there's no economic model where it makes sense.

Insurance for a daily consumable is quite the bureaucratic contrivance. That's the first mistake.

Birth control is not free. The end user may not clearly see a price tag, but everyone is still paying for it. Tact it onto insurance and the price of insurance is higher. You or your employer pay more for insurance. Your wages make up the difference. Or maybe we raise the price of the products employers sell, and you buy.

You're still paying for it, it's just the payment structure is twisted and convoluted. A bureaucratic nightmare with hidden costs and many hands in the cookie jar, that's the second mistake.

Your employer should have NO RELATION to your birth control. OR your health care. Make that the damn law and CUT the bureaucracy!

Whether or not the ACA is designed to destroy our existing system to usher in single payer, part of its aim is clearly to break insurance away from the employer-furnished model. It wasn't done immediately because of the huge disruption that would be caused; the political effect of that disruption would end a lot of careers, so it was politically impossible to get 50 votes, much less 60. And from a societal point of view, it only makes sense to establish the exchanges and work out the bugs before moving everyone onto them.

 

[MrPickins]

Both you guys are missing Hobby Lobby's argument, which is that they are being forced to provide the birth control they consider religiously offensive. Hobby Lobby does not object to the employee buying these products, they object to being forced to buy them for the employee. I don't find the argument particularly persuasive, but I can see their argument and concede they have a point.

They have a point if:

1. You feel that corporations can have religious beliefs
2. You think that a corporation's religious beliefs should give them the right to dictate the medical coverage of their employees

Number one makes no sense to me, personally. But, I'm also of the opinion that corporations shouldn't have the same rights as people.

Number 2 leads to a slippery slope where companies can claim all kinds of exemption from laws based on their "beliefs".

 

[werepossum]

I am not taking a moral stance, I am just in favor of Hobby Lobby's rights as a business. I don't recall the right to an abortion of birth control being in the constitution. Hobby Lobby still offers birth control in their health insurance. What is the big deal?

Philosophically I agree completely that companies should not be forced to provide things for free. Where I think Hobby Lobby's argument breaks down is that while every other employer must provide this, we should be exempt because of our religious views. Unless that religion IS the core of your business, like a church-run school or daycare, that seems to me to be excessive privilege.

I also think their argument would be much stronger if doctors considered these drugs to cause spontaneous abortions. While they CAN cause spontaneous abortions, if taken as directed they merely prevent implantation of fertilized eggs. Some people consider that to be taking a human life, but mainstream medicine does not. Taken to an absurd extreme, you could have an employer argue that my religion teaches me that the soul resides in the heart, so I should not have to cover heart replacements. Thus while I can see the merit in Hobby Lobby's argument, I cannot find it persuasive.

 

[TerryMathews]

Here's what I don't understand.

Health insurances and by extension have the right to not cover certain drugs. Mine, for example will not pay for Prilosec. Why do they have the right to do that will all drugs except birth control?

I don't have an issue with birth control. I do have an issue with the pedestal it is being placed on over other more medically necessary treatments.

Our priorities are truly fucked when birth control is free and nitroglycerin is not.

 

[werepossum]

They have a point if:

1. You feel that corporations can have religious beliefs
2. You think that a corporation's religious beliefs should give them the right to dictate the medical coverage of their employees

Number one makes no sense to me, personally. But, I'm also of the opinion that corporations shouldn't have the same rights as people.

Number 2 leads to a slippery slope where companies can claim all kinds of exemption from laws based on their "beliefs".

For the first, Hobby Lobby is a privately owned corporation, so management are also the owners. I don't think you can separate the two, although I agree that First Amendment protections should be significantly less for a corporation than for a person. For the second, Hobby Lobby is not objecting to the employees having birth control that the Hobby Lobby owners find objectionable, but to the law requiring Hobby Lobby to buy for its employees those objectionable. There is a major difference morally between what I do and what you do with money I give you in exchange for your work.

I dislike slippery slope arguments in principle, but I can certainly agree that there are potential problems here if Hobby Lobby prevails. That is just asking for corporations to discover religious arguments that give them an edge. It also opens up a discussion of corporate rights that can be problematic - I can accept that it is difficult to differentiate between the owners' religious rights and views and their private corporation's religious rights and views, but to grant special privilege based on that relationship is to make some corporations more equal than others. Thus this is one of those very few cases where I find a slippery slope argument to have some merit. You aren't arguing that Y might happen if we do X, but rather arguing that allowing X might in itself make X grow beyond the initial scope. I think that's a reasonable argument against Hobby Lobby's claim.

 

[MrPickins]

For the records, I also dislike slippery slope arguments as I feel they are usually overstated.

I do think it's a real possibility in this case, though.

 

[werepossum]

Here's what I don't understand.

Health insurances and by extension have the right to not cover certain drugs. Mine, for example will not pay for Prilosec. Why do they have the right to do that will all drugs except birth control?

I don't have an issue with birth control. I do have an issue with the pedestal it is being placed on over other more medically necessary treatments.

Our priorities are truly fucked when birth control is free and nitroglycerin is not.

That's a good point, although I'm not sure it applies specifically to Hobby Lobby's claim. In this particular case I don't believe the bureaucracy will allow insurance companies to not cover any birth control drug that is past an experimental stage, so for Hobby Lobby to prevail would be to establish that the employer has an inherent right to ban a drug that the insurer cannot ban. It is an interesting angle though.

As far as our priorities being truly fucked, I believe that ship sailed when SCOTUS ruled that nude dancing for money is protected free speech whilst buying air time for a political advert is not - although as SCOTUS has since reversed that I suppose that's now a poor example. lol

 

[werepossum]

Not really. When motherjones listed mutual funds that contain large companies, held in many funds, who primary revenue isn't birth control drugs.

The companies that motherjones is listing are the following:
Pfizer - a DOW 30, S&P 500 company
Forest laboratories - S&P 500 company
Aetna - S&P 500 company
Humana - S&P 500 company
AstraZeneca - the tenth largest company on the london exchange
Teva Pharmaceutical - top 15 pharmaceutical company in the world
Bayer - have you heard of aspirin?

Since for most mutual funds, these company would at most make up single digit percentage and then birth control relate items don't move the needle at all for any of these companies. You're looking at something like 0.0001 of the 401K supports birth control drugs.

Agreed. The Mother Jones argument is extremely weak.

For the records, I also dislike slippery slope arguments as I feel they are usually overstated.

I do think it's a real possibility in this case, though.

Agreed. Usually the slippery slope argument involves the possibility that some other, marginally related thing might happen. In this case, the slippery slope argument involves the actual right in question.

 

[Bird222]

Both you guys are missing Hobby Lobby's argument, which is that they are being forced to provide the birth control they consider religiously offensive. Hobby Lobby does not object to the employee buying these products, they object to being forced to buy them for the employee. I don't find the argument particularly persuasive, but I can see their argument and concede they have a point.

1. Has it been established that HL is paying 100% of the premiums for its employees? If not, the employees have a say.

2. Even if HL does pay 100%, the employees still have a say because those benefits are part of their compensation just like their salaries. I guarantee HL is not providing health insurance for people that don't work for them.

This is the dumbest shit ever.

 

[smackababy]

That's a good point, although I'm not sure it applies specifically to Hobby Lobby's claim. In this particular case I don't believe the bureaucracy will allow insurance companies to not cover any birth control drug that is past an experimental stage, so for Hobby Lobby to prevail would be to establish that the employer has an inherent right to ban a drug that the insurer cannot ban. It is an interesting angle though.

As far as our priorities being truly fucked, I believe that ship sailed when SCOTUS ruled that nude dancing for money is protected free speech whilst buying air time for a political advert is not - although as SCOTUS has since reversed that I suppose that's now a poor example. lol

The problem is Hobby Lobby is trying to ban a drug they have to pay for because THEY classify it is something doctors are in agreement that it is not. Thus, Hobby Lobby is trying to override an expert in that field with their nonsense. If this was about Hobby Lobby refusing to cover the cost of abortions, I'd think they have more of a foot to stand on. However, they are trying to claim pills doctors universally agree isn't an abortion is an abortion pill and thus, that they should not be forced to provide it for their employees.

I am pretty sure we've already had this court battle (company's medical stance vs doctor's medical stance which is why they had to employ company doctors, rather than outright saying "you're not too sick to work") and companies didn't win.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Not really. When motherjones listed mutual funds that contain large companies, held in many funds, who primary revenue isn't birth control drugs.

The companies that motherjones is listing are the following:
Pfizer - a DOW 30, S&P 500 company
Forest laboratories - S&P 500 company
Aetna - S&P 500 company
Humana - S&P 500 company
AstraZeneca - the tenth largest company on the london exchange
Teva Pharmaceutical - top 15 pharmaceutical company in the world
Bayer - have you heard of aspirin?

Since for most mutual funds, these company would at most make up single digit percentage and then birth control relate items don't move the needle at all for any of these companies. You're looking at something like 0.0001 of the 401K supports birth control drugs.

You absolutely can't claim a deep religious conviction against covering birth control and at the same direct investments into the companies that produce them regardless of how the percentages break down. This completely discredits their entire basis for the lawsuit.

 

[werepossum]

The problem is Hobby Lobby is trying to ban a drug they have to pay for because THEY classify it is something doctors are in agreement that it is not. Thus, Hobby Lobby is trying to override an expert in that field with their nonsense. If this was about Hobby Lobby refusing to cover the cost of abortions, I'd think they have more of a foot to stand on. However, they are trying to claim pills doctors universally agree isn't an abortion is an abortion pill and thus, that they should not be forced to provide it for their employees.

I am pretty sure we've already had this court battle (company's medical stance vs doctor's medical stance which is why they had to employ company doctors, rather than outright saying "you're not too sick to work") and companies didn't win.

Yes, I made that point earlier. If we were discussing abortions I still don't think that Hobby Lobby's argument would be convincing on balance, but their argument would be certainly much stronger.

 

[werepossum]

You absolutely can't claim a deep religious conviction against covering birth control and at the same direct investments into the companies that produce them regardless of how the percentages break down. This completely discredits their entire basis for the lawsuit.

Dude, that's just a completely stupid argument. It's akin to arguing that someone accepting welfare cannot claim conscientious objector status if drafted because the same government has a military. Hobby Lobby makes available to its employees certain plans of which a tiny, tiny portion concerns the drugs in question and if they desire, the employees may choose a fund with that tiny, tiny portion. That is completely different from Hobby Lobby being forced to buy those same drugs.

 

[smackababy]

Dude, that's just a completely stupid argument. It's akin to arguing that someone accepting welfare cannot claim conscientious objector status if drafted because the same government has a military. Hobby Lobby makes available to its employees certain plans of which a tiny, tiny portion concerns the drugs in question and if they desire, the employees may choose a fund with that tiny, tiny portion. That is completely different from Hobby Lobby being forced to buy those same drugs.

Except, only a tiny portion of the Hobby Lobby workforce is going to use the specific "abortion" pills they are against. The fact they are taking a hard stance and citing religious morals about said pills is why it is being highlighted they don't have the same opinion on mutual funds that directly invest in the companies producing said drugs they are against providing.

If the owners of Hobby Lobby don't approve of some of the drugs available to the market, they can choose not to take them. They shouldn't be allowed to choose to not provide healthcare for their employees because some MIGHT take a drug they object to.

 

[werepossum]

Except, only a tiny portion of the Hobby Lobby workforce is going to use the specific "abortion" pills they are against. The fact they are taking a hard stance and citing religious morals about said pills is why it is being highlighted they don't have the same opinion on mutual funds that directly invest in the companies producing said drugs they are against providing.

If the owners of Hobby Lobby don't approve of some of the drugs available to the market, they can choose not to take them. They shouldn't be allowed to choose to not provide healthcare for their employees because some MIGHT take a drug they object to.

<sigh> I must be saying it wrong.

Hobby Lobby is not buying those funds for the employee, just not enforcing their will on the employees to prevent them from doing so. What each employee chooses to do is on his or her soul.

Hobby Lobby IS being forced to buy the drugs for any employees who want them, per the ACA. If one believes these drugs equate to murder, then being told they'll only have to pay for a few murders is hollow comfort for any moral person. Surely you can see that whether or not you agree that is a reasonable conclusion OR that this religious belief should exclude an employer from requirements enforced on other employers.

For me, this is the only question to be answered. I can totally see an exemption for an employer whose business IS the religion. Hobby Lobby will argue that their faith is an integral part of their business model, just as with a church. I would argue otherwise, that a business should be not-for-profit and deserve that status. In much the same way a mosque-run school is allowed to discriminate against Jews and Christians and Hindus in hiring, whereas an extremely devout Muslim family running a hotel by Islamic principles is not. There should be a divide between businesses which essentially are part of the religion, and businesses which are shaped by the religion and operated according to its principles.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Dude, that's just a completely stupid argument. It's akin to arguing that someone accepting welfare cannot claim conscientious objector status if drafted because the same government has a military. Hobby Lobby makes available to its employees certain plans of which a tiny, tiny portion concerns the drugs in question and if they desire, the employees may choose a fund with that tiny, tiny portion. That is completely different from Hobby Lobby being forced to buy those same drugs.

No, it's akin to arguing you have a moral objection to covering birth control but not one for actively supporting and profiting from its production, and that is the completely stupid argument.

 

[Bird222]

Dude, that's just a completely stupid argument. It's akin to arguing that someone accepting welfare cannot claim conscientious objector status if drafted because the same government has a military. Hobby Lobby makes available to its employees certain plans of which a tiny, tiny portion concerns the drugs in question and if they desire, the employees may choose a fund with that tiny, tiny portion. That is completely different from Hobby Lobby being forced to buy those same drugs.

You know what else is a stupid argument, that a legal entity has religious beliefs.