It’s a bit more complicated than that. No one forced the HobLobs to form a corporation and go into a business that hires people. When they chose to do that, they tacitly agreed to obey the various labor laws implied by this decision. Now they want to impose their beliefs on their employees (based on some very bad theology, but we can skip that for another day). HobLob went to court arguing that their corporate religious “freedom” superceded the rights of their employees who held different beliefs.
In their decision, the Supreme Court more or less acknowledged this conflict but, since they had already equated corporations with people, they were in the absurd position of trying to find some sort of compromise that would also protect a corporation’s religious sensitivities. They declared that the special accommodations the government had offered certain Catholic institutions could be applied here, but only in this and very similar cases involving family-owned corporations: the insurance companies could offer the birth control for free (sure, that’s gonna happen), or the government can pay for it (as will almost certainly be the case), so the employees will (theoretical) not be denied their rights. So what will probably happen is that the employees will get their birth control after being forced to jump through some bureaucratic hoops, and the taxpayers will have to pay for it. Note also that the Court that is responsible for upholding the Constitution is here mandating spending decisions for Congress. (So much for originalism!). A very messy and largely unsatisfactory decision, with unfortunate implications. Next, privately-held corporations will form or adopt a religion that doesn’t believe in minimum wages or labor laws, or inoculations for children, or any medical interference with God’s will, or psychiatric counseling, or insist on the right to all sorts of hiring discrimination against people with certain races or religious or sexual preferences because of their “closely held” religious beliefs. The Court had virtually invited such cases and will have no trouble filling its docket for decades to come. In fine, Court has stepped into it, and soon they’ll be tracking it to a doorstep near youI am sure there are some savvy investors here.
If my 401K invests in Hobby Lobby, can I ask them to pull my money out?
TY.
JSP.
There is no chance any 401(k) investment fund can have holdings in that company.
the double standard here is people say their employer has no business in what goes on in their bedroom but they demand their employer pays them for what goes on in their bedroom.
Hobby Lobby only declines to pay for certain contraceptions. No one is denied anything. Are these meds illegal? Go buy your own. Or don't work there.
However, they do pay for Viagra, Cialis ! So Hobby Lobby is interested in what goes on in their employees bedrooms, LMAO.
An employer that believes taking away contraceptive rights for women that work for them, while all the while letting men have a vasectomy and use Viagra? Can you say double standard?
I'm lucky my son is 21 years of age and he doesn't have to buy anything from that store for school.
I am 101% with you HCG. I am a strong believer in individual freedom and choice. Religious freedom is letting people follow their own AND NOT FORCE your beliefs on others.
letting people follow their own AND NOT FORCE your beliefs on others." So why are you FORCING your beliefs on Hobby Lobby? Hobby Lobby is NOT denying anyones rights. You should read the entire case before making ignorant comments.
Well what if they.were a Muslim corporation enforcing their religious beliefs......thus slippery slope the dissent pointed out. A corporation is a legal fiction, it is a terrible decision.
I agree with ALMOST everything that has been said here, except for this: I was employed for decades, and Viagra was NEVER covered by any insurance that my employer provided. I recently went on Medicare, and Viagra is NOT covered by the primary government policy or by the secondary private insurance I purchased. Pointing out that men get Viagra coverage while women don't get contraceptives is inaccurate and, frankly, sounds a little petulant. Hey, ... I'm on your side!!
Did your employer use religion to deny Viagra or is the Federal Government using religion to deny it? You are way off target on the subject.
Read my comment again. Group insurance policies don't usually cover Viagra. In fact, I know of none that will. Maybe somewhere there's a Cadillac policy for executives that does, but I've never seen it. If you know of one that does, let me know. Let us all know.
I repeat, I'm on your side. I think the decision against women is deplorable. Just stop repeating the misinformation that men are covered for Viagra when they aren't. It makes you sound resentful of men over something that isn't true. It implies a conflict of interest between men and women when in fact our interests should be the same.
There have been lots of articles discussing this specifically. I've attached one from Forbes; I chose the Forbes article because it is not a liberal magazine like most of the other sources I found (the conservative sources conveniently leave out this little detail).
But yea, there are many plans that do cover ED drugs, and some states require them to do so. ED is a medical condition, and as such, ED drugs are covered. That wasn't necessarily true when Viagra first came out, but a lot has changed in the last 10 years (and yes, I've worked for a health insurance company -- I know what I'm talking about). Medicare does not cover it, but Aetna and United Healthcare do. Here is more info: http://www.personalhealthinsurance.com/does-health-insurance-cover-viagra/
-- Modified on 7/9/2014 11:24:57 AM
Thanks, Natasha, for the very informative references. But this is the Florida Board, and allow me to quote from the source you provided:
“On the other hand, many private insurance plans, such as Aetna and United Healthcare, make provisions to cover the cost of Viagra or other ED drugs when deemed ‘medically necessary’ by a doctor and if the patient’s state of residence requires them to do so.”
Florida does not require it (I wonder which / how many states do?). My personal experience was with a government agency here that was looking for cheap policies. After several tours of duty on that agency’s employee insurance committee, I never saw a group policy submitted to us (by any company, including by those you cite) that offered Viagra in their formularies. And these were the standard group policies that most private businesses also buy. But I was careful to qualify that there may well be “Cadillac plans” offered for elite businesses. I was thinking of law and investment firms and such. Hard to believe that Hobby lobby falls into that group, but … who knew? Referring once again to your source:
“If you have a prescription drug plan, you will note that the company usually covers drugs in three levels: … Tier III drugs are usually considered non-essential and are billed at the highest rate. Most insurers list Viagra and other ED drugs as Tier III.” Billed at the highest rate (when covered at all). So, to conclude: Although some companies, somewhere, may offer Viagra coverage, if you are a Floridian with an average group medical policy, your Viagra will not be covered.
It’s a pity that we are still arguing about this when the issue should be focused on the ludicrous illogic of the Court decision (made by five men over the objections of four women), its scary implications, and the hypocritical posturing of a company that makes most of its money selling products from China (where abortion is often mandatory) and that has reportedly (see the Forbes reference Natasha kindly provided) invested $73 million in the company that makes Plan B Morning-After pills.
If everyone follows your advice how long do you think the very people you claim to support will have the jobs and the paychecks they depend on to support their families?
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood will continue to provide contraceptive coverage, they were only exempt from paying for drugs that terminate pregnancy not the ones that prevent it.
Oh, the employees will still get their birth control, but now you and I will pay for it instead of the HobLobs. Note that this is a corporation based mostly on reselling imported junk from China, where birth control and abortions are often mandatory. The HobLobs hate abortifacients when they cost them money, but their principles disappear when profits are involved.
I find myself in a quandary here. I believe in a woman's right to contraceptives. I also believe in freedom of religion. Here the two are at odds. I haven't seen Hobby Lobby telling anyone not to use contraceptives, but just doesn't want to pay for them. I can't support trying to force owners of a privately owned company to pay for something medically not necessary, unlike if it were publicly traded. Not attacking anyone for their opinion, I respect their right to disagree.
Now, if Hobby Lobby tried telling their employees they couldn't use contraceptives, I'd back action against them. Here I just see trying to make the owners convert, same thing as Muslim Extremists do on a smaller scale. The United States was founded on the principals that people did not have to believe the same things.
Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated". It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making.
I wonder if you'd feel the same way if you were a woman. My guess would be no
You are mistaken, completely. I fought for the rights of all Americans. Trying to force a FAMILY owned business to pay for something against their religious belief is contrary to freedom. If the business was publicly owned, as I stated I would support boycotting the store. Hobby Lobby does not tell their employees not to use contraceptives, they just don't want to pay for something against their religion. I fully agree with a woman's right to use contraceptives.
You are dead wrong Mr. Religious freedom does not give you the permission to force your religious beliefs on others who are unwilling to think or believe in what you do.
What the store is doing is blatant discrimination against women and their choice. I agree 101% with what HCG says, i.e., this is nothing but criminal discrimination against one section of the population.
Hobby Lobby is not forcing their religious beliefs on it's employees. It is wrong to try to force them to go against their religion! Not once has Hobby Lobby told any of their employees not to use contraceptives.
Thanks for making his point.
I wonder if you'd feel the same way if you were a woman. My guess would be no.
Let me tell you something. Your religion is between you and your family. You cannot force your religion on other unwilling people and those who don't believe in it. For some women contraception is medically necessary, ask an OB/GYN. In this case, the company has no problem covering Viagra, Cialis and Vasectomy! How come. Are these medically necessary?
If someone uses your logic, how about a business owner who is a follower of kingdom hall of jehovah witness ban all blood transfusion for his employees in his health plan? Just because his faith does not believe in it and let persons die.
This is the age of technology, Internet, Facebook and people do banking from their smart phones, hurricanes are forecast before they hit the land and a baby's sex is known before being born.
What some people are trying to do is to use their religion and take the country back to stone age.
None of us want to read it here
Don't read!
Again, Hobby Lobby is not telling anyone not to use contraceptives. They do not want to go against their religion and pay for it! If the company was publicly traded, then it would be a whole different story. You are talking about suppressing their religious rights, I am not talking about forcing anyone to follow a religion.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. No one forced the HobLobs to form a corporation and go into a business that hires people. When they chose to do that, they tacitly agreed to obey the various labor laws implied by this decision. Now they want to impose their beliefs on their employees (based on some very bad theology, but we can skip that for another day). HobLob went to court arguing that their corporate religious “freedom” superceded the rights of their employees who held different beliefs.
In their decision, the Supreme Court more or less acknowledged this conflict but, since they had already equated corporations with people, they were in the absurd position of trying to find some sort of compromise that would also protect a corporation’s religious sensitivities. They declared that the special accommodations the government had offered certain Catholic institutions could be applied here, but only in this and very similar cases involving family-owned corporations: the insurance companies could offer the birth control for free (sure, that’s gonna happen), or the government can pay for it (as will almost certainly be the case), so the employees will (theoretical) not be denied their rights.
So what will probably happen is that the employees will get their birth control after being forced to jump through some bureaucratic hoops, and the taxpayers will have to pay for it. Note also that the Court that is responsible for upholding the Constitution is here mandating spending decisions for Congress. (So much for originalism!). A very messy and largely unsatisfactory decision, with unfortunate implications.
Next, privately-held corporations will form or adopt a religion that doesn’t believe in minimum wages or labor laws, or inoculations for children, or any medical interference with God’s will, or psychiatric counseling, or insist on the right to all sorts of hiring discrimination against people with certain races or religious or sexual preferences because of their “closely held” religious beliefs. The Court had virtually invited such cases and will have no trouble filling its docket for decades to come. In fine, Court has stepped into it, and soon they’ll be tracking it to a doorstep near you
Jean your question was never answered. LOL
Unless you have a "selective reading" disorder, I answered her question the first time.
I think Jean's a guy. His name is a play on the name of a French existential philosopher (a male one).
Csekhar, I appreciate and agree with all of your points here. Particularly the one about Jehova's witnesses and blood transfusions. Thank you for your input!