Hobby Lobby

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Googlism

It's the worst of all isms. I never even give any other search engines a chance.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

As if there isn't enough sexism, classism, racism, and ethnocentrism in the world.

I don't believe in required birth control or any equivalent. Such restrictions are the opposite extreme of limits to BC and the pro-life movement.

I believe in a medium. I believe there should be world sex education and reproductive education that teaches people that sexuality isn't shameful, reproductive rights are important, having children is a choice and not a requirement or obligation, and children are preventable without abstinence, more people in the world need to be given the resources to make reproductive choices rather than mistakes. I'm tired of people acting as though having children is required and unavoidable. I'm tired of people acting like they don't know how reproduction happens as though children just show up at their doorsteps. I'm tired of people making womanhood synonymous with motherhood; and adulthood synonymous with parenthood. And I'm tired of parents around the world spending more time planning when and how they will defecate than they spend planning to have children and learning that parenting is way more stress than it is romanticized fun and cuteness.

THIS!!!

Originally Posted by pinksequins

Self- insurance typically addresses the company's losses (property and casualty, professional liability) , not the insuarance that it offers its employees. Insurance offered to employees is not self- insurance.

SIRs generally apply to larger companies in regard to property and casualty, but with health insurance, it varies.

[southbymidwest]

Yes, Hobby Lobby might be only talking about certain types of BC, but if the SC rules in favor of them, what is to stop them from changing their policy to exclude BC because they can? Heck, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in receiving blood transfusions-could a Jehovah's Witness business owner exclude covering blood transfusions?

I read an interesting comment elsewhere regarding Hobby Lobby- in essence the commenter said that she found it disturbing that Hobby Lobby buys products made in China-a country with government provided abortions, and heavily restricted religious freedoms. Sooooo... they really don't have a problem with religious freedom when it comes to their bottom line.

[33girl]

^^^On that tip, I honestly had never heard of Hobby Lobby until all this insurance kerfuffle. No publicity is bad publicity.

[PhoenixAzul]

Originally Posted by southbymidwest

Yes, Hobby Lobby might be only talking about certain types of BC, but if the SC rules in favor of them, what is to stop them from changing their policy to exclude BC because they can? Heck, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in receiving blood transfusions-could a Jehovah's Witness business owner exclude covering blood transfusions?

I read an interesting comment elsewhere regarding Hobby Lobby- in essence the commenter said that she found it disturbing that Hobby Lobby buys products made in China-a country with government provided abortions, and heavily restricted religious freedoms. Sooooo... they really don't have a problem with religious freedom when it comes to their bottom line.

Boom.

Why not require male employees to be circumcised? Why not refuse coverage for vasectomies? Why not decide to stop paying for diabetes medication because you can totally pray that away...if you want it enough.

This who thing is beyond infuriating to me. Which set of religious rules are we going to follow? The CEO? The Board Pres? The store manager? The franchise owner? Which rules of the religion are we going to follow- because let's be real, it is next to impossible to follow each and every one?

And are we going to have to follow a new set of religious guidelines each and every time the religious figurehead changes? "Hey guys, I know we were following the Southern Baptist guidelines, but we've got a new CEO, so here's his new religious guidelines. So no more hormonal birth control, and no blood transfusions. Oh, and someone needs to scrub the bathroom."

What kind of notice will I be given as an applicant when I am job hunting?
"Hi Phoenix NewHire, just so you know, we're Pastafarians, so you can't have this procedure, this procedure, or that medication."

Signs on the door? Posters in the breakroom a'la federal employment law posters?

I don't normally go here on a public forum...but think about the traditional structure of a corporation. Who is at the top? Rich (typically white) men. To me, this feels like protecting privilege, and further subjugation of women, women who are mothers, and poor people. To me, it's perpetuating the "we're at the top, we know what's best, you are always going to be under us, so don't worry about a thing, we know best" *paternal head pat*.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAzul

Why not refuse coverage for vasectomies?

The insurance I had for many years as an employee of a Catholic hospital didn't cover vasectomies, and the insurance I have now with my (secular, non-Catholic) company also does not cover vasectomies.

Originally Posted by PhoenixAzul

What kind of notice will I be given as an applicant when I am job hunting?
"Hi Phoenix NewHire, just so you know, we're Pastafarians, so you can't have this procedure, this procedure, or that medication."
.

I haven't heard of an employer/insurer saying the employee/insured can't have a procedure or medication. The issue is who will pay for it. There is a huge difference.

New hires should always be given information regarding company benefits, and that information should include notice of insurance limitations so that the applicant or new hire knows exactly what will be covered.

My son has terrible asthma, and also had a heart condition requiring open heart surgery when he was 3. Because of this, he can't use an Albuterol inhaler. Well, our insurance only covers Albuterol. So, his inhaler that he uses every single day twice a day to keep him alive is 100% out of pocket. I pay A LOT in premiums, and the regular medications my family needs are not covered. Insurance has limitations, whether you work for Hobby Lobby or not.

[AGDee]

Perhaps only vasectomies and Viagra for married men. Let's see how far that would get!

[ASTalumna06]

I think we all agree that there are too many 'what if' questions that will arise if this passes.

What if the CEO is a Scientologist? Or someone who didn't believe in vaccinations for children? Or a holistic healer?

It's been mentioned a few times here that if the "Insurance Figurehead" changes, what happens then? Does insurance coverage change? Are new things covered and other things excluded? Will each of these cases have to be brought to court?

How many exceptions can be made?

And 33, although I had heard of Hobby Lobby before, I don't know that I've ever seen one. And I don't really care to now.

[ree-Xi]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Perhaps only vasectomies and Viagra for married men. Let's see how far that would get!

Ding, ding, ding!!

[AGDee]

So irishpipes, don't you wish you could choose any insurance you wanted so you didn't have those limitations imposed on you by your employer's choice of health insurance?

Applicants should be given information regarding company benefits, not new hires. They need to know before they accept a job.

But as far as your son's inhaler goes, any insurance will pay if your son's doctor gets on the phone with them and fights for it. You need to insist on that. Medications that are not on the formulary can be covered if there are no alternatives and the doctor provides medical proof of that. My gastro has buggered them relentlessly until they paid.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by AGDee

So irishpipes, don't you wish you could choose any insurance you wanted so you didn't have those limitations imposed on you by your employer's choice of health insurance?

Applicants should be given information regarding company benefits, not new hires. They need to know before they accept a job.

But as far as your son's inhaler goes, any insurance will pay if your son's doctor gets on the phone with them and fights for it. You need to insist on that. Medications that are not on the formulary can be covered if there are no alternatives and the doctor provides medical proof of that. My gastro has buggered them relentlessly until they paid.

Actually, I would rather remove insurance from my compensation altogether, earn more, and buy insurance on my own so I don't have to pay for options I don't want or need.

Also, my husband is a physician. We have done all we can about coverage for my son. It's a no go. It's frustrating, but I view insurance as protection for major medical issues (like his surgery) and not for day to day medications.

[agzg]

Also, vasectomies and viagara are a false comparison to most hormonal forms of birth control, as they don't treat any other condition besides what they are known for. Hormonal birth control treats a ton of conditions, which is why it is considered preventative care.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by agzg

Also, vasectomies and viagara are a false comparison to most hormonal forms of birth control, as they don't treat any other condition besides what they are known for. Hormonal birth control treats a ton of conditions, which is why it is considered preventative care.

Viagra can also treat other conditions, mainly some dealing with blood (pressure) and the heart. It's original purpose wasn't even for ED.

ETA:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_...y-hypertension

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by agzg

Also, vasectomies and viagara are a false comparison to most hormonal forms of birth control, as they don't treat any other condition besides what they are known for. Hormonal birth control treats a ton of conditions, which is why it is considered preventative care.

I was just providing examples of injecting a business leader's morality into health coverage, not saying it was the equivalent.

[AGDee]

That's what I mean. Remove it from employer control and let us choose our own completely.

I'm really surprised they won't pay with such a compelling argument. My day to day (ok, one bi-weekly injection) medication costs $2600 a month so without insurance, I wouldn't be able to take it at all.