Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):
As I understand it, HL invests money for 401k plans in pharmaceutical companies.    I think that's a little different than what you're submitting as fact.

Not really. They are providing money to companies to develop and manufacture the very thing they are "so" against.

Not what I've read.   I can provide a link for it.   Can you provide one showing what you claim?

Yup. I'll link it when I get home. I guess they don't do business with a country that forces abortions on their populace either.

Here's mine.   http://aattp.org/hobby-lobby-401k-hypocrisy-they-were-for-birth-control-even-after-they-were-against-it/

I figured I couldn't find anything less objective on the ruling than something coming from "Americans Against the Tea Party".     So, if you have something else, I'd like to see it.

Did you rely read that article?

And then many are all too fast to point out that the Greens are not benefitting and profiting from the 401(k) investments in the very products they went to SCOTUS to avoid having to provide based on their religious beliefs. Yo [sic] argue that it is the employees- not the Greens- who are benefitting. And yet, the Greens ARE employees and, as such, participate in the 401(k) program! While you seem to only view them as the shareholders of the corporation, you forget that they are also employed by the corporation in the most senior management positions! They are, as much as anyone else drawing a paycheck from Hobby Lobby, employees. thus, if the 401(k) is profiting, then the Greens are profiting. And with 75 percent of the funds included holding investments that would fail the Green’s religious test as stated in their SCOTUS brief, I’ll gladly take the bet from anyone who cares to wager that the Greens are not choosing some of these funds in their 401(k).


It's still a 401k investment in pharmaceutical companies, right?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 11:55:00 AM (view original):
They offer health care to their employees. Birth control is covered by all health care plans. They should not be able to pick and choose what benefits they cover just as I can't pick what my tax money pays for.

Now, if an employee is paying into their health care plan, shouldn't they have a say in what is covered?

Bingo. Health insurance isn't a la carte.

Why shouldn't it be?

Because that would cause problems. If enough people opt out of a certain coverage, for example if all women opted out of coverage for testicular and prostate cancer, there might not be enough premium collected to cover the losses from people who do elect the coverage. Also, what is causing a health problem isn't always immediately apparent. How do you sort out what's covered and what isn't? It's more effective from both a rate setting perspective and a claim adjusting perspective to just cover all health issues with one policy.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):
As I understand it, HL invests money for 401k plans in pharmaceutical companies.    I think that's a little different than what you're submitting as fact.

Not really. They are providing money to companies to develop and manufacture the very thing they are "so" against.

Not what I've read.   I can provide a link for it.   Can you provide one showing what you claim?

Yup. I'll link it when I get home. I guess they don't do business with a country that forces abortions on their populace either.

Here's mine.   http://aattp.org/hobby-lobby-401k-hypocrisy-they-were-for-birth-control-even-after-they-were-against-it/

I figured I couldn't find anything less objective on the ruling than something coming from "Americans Against the Tea Party".     So, if you have something else, I'd like to see it.

Did you rely read that article?

I rely did.    Is this your problem?

And then many are all too fast to point out that the Greens are not benefitting and profiting from the 401(k) investments in the very products they went to SCOTUS to avoid having to provide based on their religious beliefs. Yo [sic] argue that it is the employees- not the Greens- who are benefitting. And yet, the Greens ARE employees and, as such, participate in the 401(k) program! While you seem to only view them as the shareholders of the corporation, you forget that they are also employed by the corporation in the most senior management positions! They are, as much as anyone else drawing a paycheck from Hobby Lobby, employees. thus, if the 401(k) is profiting, then the Greens are profiting. And with 75 percent of the funds included holding investments that would fail the Green’s religious test as stated in their SCOTUS brief, I’ll gladly take the bet from anyone who cares to wager that the Greens are not choosing some of these funds in their 401(k).


It's still a 401k investment in pharmaceutical companies, right?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/9/2014 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/9/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 11:55:00 AM (view original):
They offer health care to their employees. Birth control is covered by all health care plans. They should not be able to pick and choose what benefits they cover just as I can't pick what my tax money pays for.

Now, if an employee is paying into their health care plan, shouldn't they have a say in what is covered?

Bingo. Health insurance isn't a la carte.

Why shouldn't it be?

Because that would cause problems. If enough people opt out of a certain coverage, for example if all women opted out of coverage for testicular and prostate cancer, there might not be enough premium collected to cover the losses from people who do elect the coverage. Also, what is causing a health problem isn't always immediately apparent. How do you sort out what's covered and what isn't? It's more effective from both a rate setting perspective and a claim adjusting perspective to just cover all health issues with one policy.

So you're endorsing a health insurance system in which people are forced to pay for coverages that they can never use as optimal and effective.

Good job.

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 1:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 1:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/9/2014 12:44:00 PM (view original):
As I understand it, HL invests money for 401k plans in pharmaceutical companies.    I think that's a little different than what you're submitting as fact.

Not really. They are providing money to companies to develop and manufacture the very thing they are "so" against.

Not what I've read.   I can provide a link for it.   Can you provide one showing what you claim?

Yup. I'll link it when I get home. I guess they don't do business with a country that forces abortions on their populace either.

Here's mine.   http://aattp.org/hobby-lobby-401k-hypocrisy-they-were-for-birth-control-even-after-they-were-against-it/

I figured I couldn't find anything less objective on the ruling than something coming from "Americans Against the Tea Party".     So, if you have something else, I'd like to see it.

Did you rely read that article?

I rely did.    Is this your problem?

And then many are all too fast to point out that the Greens are not benefitting and profiting from the 401(k) investments in the very products they went to SCOTUS to avoid having to provide based on their religious beliefs. Yo [sic] argue that it is the employees- not the Greens- who are benefitting. And yet, the Greens ARE employees and, as such, participate in the 401(k) program! While you seem to only view them as the shareholders of the corporation, you forget that they are also employed by the corporation in the most senior management positions! They are, as much as anyone else drawing a paycheck from Hobby Lobby, employees. thus, if the 401(k) is profiting, then the Greens are profiting. And with 75 percent of the funds included holding investments that would fail the Green’s religious test as stated in their SCOTUS brief, I’ll gladly take the bet from anyone who cares to wager that the Greens are not choosing some of these funds in their 401(k).


It's still a 401k investment in pharmaceutical companies, right?

So you are saying that HL does not invest money in companies that create and distribute the methods of birth control they are so against.

Posted by The Taint on 7/9/2014 2:18:00 PM (view original):
How do you know they're never going to use an option?