Hobby Lobby Closing?

[goldlizard]

Has anyone heard about Hobby Lobby closing due to Obama care? I heard this as a rumor from Facebook.

 

[DizWolf]

rumor? facebook? No it's all a pile of hogwash crap. They're getting fined for not providing healthcare because they don't want to pay for birth control.

I'll fight very hard not to comment on this to avoid forum rules. Politics and religion in one shot.... just never a good thing to talk about.

They're opening a new one locally.... I'd say they're ok.

 

[goldlizard]

Ok, that makes sense. We just had one open here a couple months ago. I do agree politics and religion don't mix.

 

[DizWolf]

Ok, that makes sense. We just had one open here a couple months ago. I do agree politics and religion don't mix.

oh they mix. like white phosphorus and oxygen.

 

[JStarStar]

I wish there was a way to respond to these email/Fbook/Tweeter dingbat chain letters -- that would melt the sender's computer into a heap of slag.

 

[rokitflite]

Has anyone heard about Hobby Lobby closing due to Obama care? I heard this as a rumor from Facebook.

Well... They can't put anything on the internet that isn't true. That's a fact. I read it on the internet.

 

[Peartree]

Without taking sides, the owners of Hobby Lobby oppose parts of the new government insurance mandate on religious grounds as someone stated earlier. In part, their opposition is based on Hobby Lobby being a privately owned company and not a publicly traded corporation (I think). The legal wrangling will probably take several more years.

 

[jsargevt]

Can't we all just get along and be tolerant of the outward differences we may have? Rather than spending time and energy fighting and arguing why don't we sit down and all work together to find a compromise that is in the best interest of us as people.

Both sides of this discussion think that they have the moral high ground when in reality they all are only supporting their own agenda with NO REGARD to the best interest of the general population.

That is all I have to say on the subject.

 

[sodmeister]

Last time this came up ,it got locked down in the end.It was not a pleasent !



Paul T

 

[belfert]

Hobby Lobby is opposed to providing health insurance coverage for emergency contraceptives for employees as the Affordable Health Care act requires. Hobby Lobby has won a Federal Court injunction to not have to provide coverage for these drugs under their health care plan for now. There was a letter supposedly from Hobby Lobby's CEO/owner circulating on the Internet stating that Hobby Lobby would close their stores if required to provide this benefit. The company CEO/owner has stated this is not true and he never wrote such a letter.

Business wise, it would make a lot more sense for Hobby Lobby to make all employees part time to avoid having to supply health insurance instead of paying fines or going out of business if the court rules against them eventually.

 

[samb]

Last time this came up ,it got locked down in the end.It was not a pleasent !

Paul T

I'm off to look for some Estes 29mm BP motors before these wild rumors come true.

Can't we all just get along and be tolerant of the outward differences we may have?...

Of course we most definitely can not, as the whole course of human history has taught us ! I've decided the best I can do is fight fair and protect the ones I love to the best of my ability.

...

Business wise, it would make a lot more sense for Hobby Lobby to make all employees part time to avoid having to supply health insurance instead of paying fines or going out of business if the court rules against them eventually.

The Affordable Health Care Act was certainly described (in code, of course) in the Apocalypse of John. :wink:
I do agree with you on this point and I think it will have a negative impact on small business and local economies. Hopefully, not a specific goal of the supporters of this legislation.

 

[JPVegh]

It's darn near impossible for a company of that size to make all of their employees part time. Management almost have to be full time salaried personel in order to be cost effective. If they are objecting to the AHCA on religious grounds then covering one employee or ten thousand is the same thing.

 

[Zeus-cat]

Snopes.com just updated their entry on Hobby Lobby and their objections to the health law. It was rather long so I did not read the whole thing. However, I saw no mention of them closing their stores over this.

 

[belfert]

Isn't another option just to drop all health insurance for all employees and then pay the $2000 fine per employee instead? The fine is not tax deductible as a business expense. My employer pays about $5,000 a year for my health insurance as a single person. I suppose an employer could raise everyone's pay by a certain amount and tell them to get their own insurance.

Some have speculated that some employers would just drop health insurance and pay the $2000 fine instead. Employers weren't required to provide health insurance prior to the Affordable Care act. If they offered health insurance before why would they drop it now and pay the fine instead? Others have stated that employers probably won't drop health insurance because a lot of employers will jump ship to another employer that does supply health insurance.

 

[bobkrech]

I'm confused about the potential incurred costs claimed by Hobby Lobby in their suit. The maximum penalty that I can find for not offering the mandated insurance is $2000 per full-time employee which about $1 per hour per employee. HL claims to have 13,000 full-time employees so the math is pretty simple: 13,000 x $2,000 = $26,000,000 or $71,200 per day and not the $100 per day per employee fine that is claimed which would be $1,300,000 per day and $475,000,000 per year. That's a huge difference.

Bob

 

[Fishhead]

Well... They can't put anything on the internet that isn't true. That's a fact. I read it on the internet.

Bon-Jour.

 

[jd2cylman]

Can't we all just get along and be tolerant of the outward differences we may have? Rather than spending time and energy fighting and arguing why don't we sit down and all work together to find a compromise that is in the best interest of us as people.

Both sides of this discussion think that they have the moral high ground when in reality they all are only supporting their own agenda with NO REGARD to the best interest of the general population.

That is all I have to say on the subject.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This makes waaayyyyy tooo much sense. You'll never get a job in politics or government :grin: :grin:

Adrian

 

[jderimig]

I'm confused about the potential incurred costs claimed by Hobby Lobby in their suit. The maximum penalty that I can find for not offering the mandated insurance is $2000 per full-time employee which about $1 per hour per employee. HL claims to have 13,000 full-time employees so the math is pretty simple: 13,000 x $2,000 = $26,000,000 or $71,200 per day and not the $100 per day per employee fine that is claimed which would be $1,300,000 per day and $475,000,000 per year. That's a huge difference.

Bob

Dumping HL employees into the exchanges is probably a better deal for HL AND the employees. I am estimating that it costs HL about $10K per employee for health insurance. Now these are not highly compensated people, this might be approaching 30% of their income or more.

So HL dumps them into the exchanges and immediately saves $8K. ($10K - 2K penalty). HL splits that savings with the employees by increasing their pay an average of $4K. The ACA limits cost of health insurance to no more that 9% of a persons income via subsidy (you and me paying). So for a $40K year HL employee (most are probably paid well less), their out of pocket premium is no higher than $3600. But they are making $4K more so they net positive and HL nets WAY positive.

 

[shrox]

First off, they have the sabbath wrong.

Second, they have the sabbath wrong.

 

[Winston]

Can't we all just get along and be tolerant of the outward differences we may have?

Unfortunately, that's not a strong point of our species.

 

[JStarStar]

Dumping HL employees into the exchanges is probably a better deal for HL AND the employees. I am estimating that it costs HL about $10K per employee for health insurance. Now these are not highly compensated people, this might be approaching 30% of their income or more.

So HL dumps them into the exchanges and immediately saves $8K. ($10K - 2K penalty). HL splits that savings with the employees by increasing their pay an average of $4K. The ACA limits cost of health insurance to no more that 9% of a persons income via subsidy (you and me paying). So for a $40K year HL employee (most are probably paid well less), their out of pocket premium is no higher than $3600. But they are making $4K more so they net positive and HL nets WAY positive.

LOL, and with that, I'll bow out. :lol::lol::lol:

 

[Marc_G]

I'll stay completely away from the religious and political implications of this whole thing (with difficulty), but point out that increasing employee pay by $4k does not increase their take home pay by as much. Keep in mind that what employers currently pay into health care plans is not taxable (say, $10k per above discussion). If HL suddenly pockets $4k of this as additional profit, that's taxable. If the employee takes home an additional $4k, they have to pay taxes on that.

So, it's not quite as win-win as it would appear on the surface. I would need to look up whether there's a deduction for individuals paying health care plans (I'm insured through work so I've never needed to investigate this) to comment further.

There! I managed not to get political!

Marc

 

[jderimig]

I'll stay completely away from the religious and political implications of this whole thing (with difficulty), but point out that increasing employee pay by $4k does not increase their take home pay by as much. Keep in mind that what employers currently pay into health care plans is not taxable (say, $10k per above discussion). If HL suddenly pockets $4k of this as additional profit, that's taxable. If the employee takes home an additional $4k, they have to pay taxes on that.

That's true, but I never turned down a raise because my taxes would go up. The employee does have the option of putting that extra $4K into a HSA and pay the premium with that if they opt for a high-deductible plan. Then all taxes on that extra $4K "Health Insurance bonus" is avoidable.

I guess my point was that the ACA makes employer health insurance for a low compensation workforce questionable financially. There is an incentive for employers to dump their employees into the exchanges. The penalty is too low. Maybe that is the intent all along......

 

[DizWolf]

This is why I drink. I think we can sum it up with this

"they stopped carrying composite motors, so who cares anymore?"

 

[belfert]

That's true, but I never turned down a raise because my taxes would go up. The employee does have the option of putting that extra $4K into a HSA and pay the premium with that if they opt for a high-deductible plan. Then all taxes on that extra $4K "Health Insurance bonus" is avoidable.

If my employer offered me an option of a $5,000 raise or keeping my health insurance I would almost certainly keep my health insurance. I doubt I could get a plan as good on my own. My employer offers both a regular health insurance plan and one with an HSA. The HSA only makes sense if you never see a doctor. If your routine medical expenses are over $2,000 a year the HSA is more expensive.

 

[jderimig]

If my employer offered me an option of a $5,000 raise or keeping my health insurance I would almost certainly keep my health insurance. I doubt I could get a plan as good on my own. My employer offers both a regular health insurance plan and one with an HSA. The HSA only makes sense if you never see a doctor. If your routine medical expenses are over $2,000 a year the HSA is more expensive.

My previous employer paid $14K for my family's high deductible health plan. My portion was another $1500. That same premium was paid for each employee regardless of their salary.

Check you W2, it shows how much your company paid for your insurance.

Under ACA you can buy a "Bronze Plan" which is would be similar to the high deductible plan except more preventive stuff is covered at 100%.

It will cost you no more than 9% of your income out of pocket.
Cost of insurance for a $30K employee:
Paid by employee in exchange market: $2700
Paid by employer in grandfathered group market: $15500

How long under these conditions do you think employer paid health insurance is going to last?

PS. I am not an advocate for the ACA. I am just pointing out that the ACA is designed to destroy the employer provided health care model.

 

[o1d_dude]

Hobby Lobby just had a grand opening of their newest store here in my neck of the woods. Hardly seems like something a company planning to shut down would do.

 

[belfert]

Check you W2, it shows how much your company paid for your insurance.

Under ACA you can buy a "Bronze Plan" which is would be similar to the high deductible plan except more preventive stuff is covered at 100%.

It will cost you no more than 9% of your income out of pocket.

How many people do you think would be willing to pay 9% of their income for health insurance? I expect a lot of folks would just do without at that price. 9% of my income would be just a few dollars more than my employer sponsored plan cost last year. I have no kids or spouse so my plan isn't as much as a family plan would cost. 9% of my income would put a huge crimp in my lifestyle.

 

[sandman]

How many people do you think would be willing to pay 9% of their income for health insurance? I expect a lot of folks would just do without at that price. 9% of my income would be just a few dollars more than my employer sponsored plan cost last year. I have no kids or spouse so my plan isn't as much as a family plan would cost. 9% of my income would put a huge crimp in my lifestyle.

Getting sick or injured without medical insurance would probably put an even bigger crimp in your lifestyle.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

That's true, but I never turned down a raise because my taxes would go up. The employee does have the option of putting that extra $4K into a HSA and pay the premium with that if they opt for a high-deductible plan..

An HSA is a great tax advantaged deal, but you cannot use it to pay your premium for health insurance. You can pay for things that go to your deductible, or copays, or coinsurance, or other medical expenses, but not insurance premiums.,