Hobby Lobby Closing?

[shrox]

And that is bad how?

Well, I have experienced health care in three different countries, the main goal of health care in the USA is to make money at the expense of actually making people healthy. Thus, hundreds of different drugs for lifestyle aliments.

These people have it right:

https://www.urbanhousecall.com/

 

[shrox]

I think a lot of problems in general would be solved if we brought back dueling.

 

[Sully]

There is no competition now. That is the problem. No one selects their hospital or medical provider based on price.

Point me to a competent and working system that doesn't have the element of some competition in it.

That is mostly true. For some elective procedures, patients can shop, but lots of the very expensive care is urgent and/or complex, and there is no real way to shop for it. Try even calling your PCP or local hospital lab to ask how much a certain blood test or imaging procedure would cost you out-of-pocket: many times they won't be able to tell you. How can you shop if you can't check prices. For competition to result in increased quality and cost, there has to be true choice for the consumer.

The other side of this is that health care is regulated such that it can't work like other businesses. If you show up sick or in labor at an ER, and have no money or ability to pay, they cannot turn you away by law. If you have a stroke and your insurance doesn't cover acute rehab, the hospital must keep and rehab you (at your loss and usually theirs) until they find someplace appropriate you can go. They can't just apologize and discharge you.

If you show up starving at McDonalds, on the other hand, they don't have to feed you regardless of your ability to pay.

And in the ER waiting room, most of us would be upset if the guy with the nosebleed can pay extra to be seen and treated before the guy with the broken leg.

No question the system is a mess, and more discussion and transparency will help, but I think that most people would be uncomfortable if health care were provided and regulated just like any other business, and that makes it harder to redesign the system. I haven't seen these kinds of ethical issues enter the public discussion much beyond the basic "right to health care" that people refer to somewhat abstractly.

I work in an academic health care institution, so I have a vested interest, as we have and will always "have" to treat people with or without insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. I don't pretend to have many big answers, as I am far from an economist, but I do think that our stats as a nation in terms of longevity, infant mortality, overall health measures, etc. are sad and shameful given our potential.

 

[KennB]

So, the bottom line is Hobby Lobby won't be closing down any time soon.

Right?

 

[Sully]

So, the bottom line is Hobby Lobby won't be closing down any time soon.

Right?

I was going to get to Hobby Lobby in Chapter 3 of my treatise, but sure, go ahead and spoil the ending!

 

[belfert]

oh i have health insurance. lol. i have a wife and 4 year old, and i live in MA, so it's mandated (not that i'd risk not having it anyway). it's just a bit eye opening to see that in total, my health insurance costs over 20,000 dollars before the benefits kick in, and on average i use less than 25% of that.

That is the whole point of insurance. Some people use very little and others use a lot. I would rather use very little heatlh care than a lot. Using a lot would probably mean I'm very sick and not healthy.

 

[Marc_G]

In my "young and invincible stage" when I was just 29, and grumbling over paying my (paltry) share of company-sponsored health insurance, I had a roller blading accident, banging up my knee. Was able to limp home but knew I needed to get it looked at. After all sorts of scans, doctor appointments over the next two weeks, some drugs for pain, and the strap-on cast, I was out about $200 of my own money. The insurance co picked up the other $18,000. And that was in 1997... I can only imagine what the bill would be today.

I never regretted the cost of paying for insurance since, even for a relatively healthy guy like me. Since then I've married a childhood leukemia survivor who has assorted health issues (and has thus been uninsurable on private insurance; thank goodness for my company plan), and have two kids (~$10k and ~$20k C-section deliveries). I'm fortunate that they are both generally healthy though the older one has had a bout of asthma and gets migraines, plus an ADHD diagnosis (so, he's essentially uninsurable on the private market). The other one also has ADHD which I wouldn't be able to get covered on private plans.

All I can say is: thank goodness for my company insurance, and thank goodness private plans will no longer be able to screen families like me out.

Marc

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

In my "young and invincible stage" when I was just 29, and grumbling over paying my (paltry) share of company-sponsored health insurance, I had a roller blading accident, banging up my knee. Was able to limp home but knew I needed to get it looked at. After all sorts of scans, doctor appointments over the next two weeks, some drugs for pain, and the strap-on cast, I was out about $200 of my own money. The insurance co picked up the other $18,000. And that was in 1997... I can only imagine what the bill would be today.

I never regretted the cost of paying for insurance since, even for a relatively healthy guy like me. Since then I've married a childhood leukemia survivor who has assorted health issues (and has thus been uninsurable on private insurance; thank goodness for my company plan), and have two kids (~$10k and ~$20k C-section deliveries). I'm fortunate that they are both generally healthy though the older one has had a bout of asthma and gets migraines, plus an ADHD diagnosis (so, he's essentially uninsurable on the private market). The other one also has ADHD which I wouldn't be able to get covered on private plans.

All I can say is: thank goodness for my company insurance, and thank goodness private plans will no longer be able to screen families like me out.

Marc

If you've got insurance through your job, then that is almost certainly your best deal. But you should know that now your family members' preexisting conditions will no longer be a factor in getting insurance on the individual market. The medical underwriting requirements that would have prevented you from getting insurance in the past are now illegal. Your family members can get insurance like anyone else, and it will cost the same as what everyone else pays.

On October 1, check out the State or Federal exchanges for your area to see what it would cost for your family. Your employer plan is probably the way to go, but it never hurts to look.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

That is the whole point of insurance. Some people use very little and others use a lot. I would rather use very little heatlh care than a lot. Using a lot would probably mean I'm very sick and not healthy.

The one thing about medical insurance is that almost everyone needs it eventually. It's kind of ironic, but with insurance of any kind, you actually hope you will pay for something your whole entire life that you will actually never use. You are lucky if you never get your money's worth! Most people carry homeowners insurance and never make a claim. But with medical insurance, there comes a time for most people that they are glad they have it. Unfortunate, but true.

It's really about not gambling more than you can afford to lose and also sleeping easy with peace of mind.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

A lot of people who do not have health insurance through their employers may be eligible for a subsidy in the form of a tax credit if they purchase eligible health insurance through one of the exchanges (also referred to as "marketplaces"). To see what your tax credit might be, check out this calculator by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

https://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

More people are probably eligible than they think.

I am not eligible for a subsidy or tax credit. But I still wanted to see what insurance might cost through the Marketplace. I went to the Federal government's site: https://www.healthcare.gov/

There you can get links to your own State's Marketplace. Mine is the California Marketplace: https://www.coveredca.com/

I found out I can get a Bronze plan (high-deductible plan comparable to what I have now) for $699 a month. Currently we are paying over $900, so that's a nice savings. The cost reduction is not due to a subsidy --- it's because more people will be in the plan.

 

[MysticalRockets]

They can scream and yell about having to close, etc... But ultimately, they are going to have to pay the fine. Bankruptcy does not get you out of paying fines.

I'm guessing that a deal will be struck with the government as to the amount, and then Hobby lobby will get sold.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

They can scream and yell about having to close, etc... But ultimately, they are going to have to pay the fine. Bankruptcy does not get you out of paying fines.

I'm guessing that a deal will be struck with the government as to the amount, and then Hobby lobby will get sold.

I don't think their argument is that they can't afford it or that they'll go bankrupt. I think they have a moral objection to including birth control in their health plans.

 

[jderimig]

I don't think their argument is that they can't afford it or that they'll go bankrupt. I think they have a moral objection to including birth control in their health plans.

Its not the moral objection to birth control, its the objection to be forced to cover abortion inducing drugs.

 

[patelldp]

Its not the moral objection to birth control, its the objection to be forced to cover abortion inducing drugs.

This guy.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Its not the moral objection to birth control, its the objection to be forced to cover abortion inducing drugs.

I think the morning after pill is considered a form of contraception, not an abortion-inducing drug. But yes, regardless of what you consider it to be, it is the coverage for the morning after pill that they object to.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

After checking the market places, it appears that I will be a big loser under ACA. Paying more for less coverage doesn't seem like a good deal to me. I guess I'll have to see how this plays out.

Are you currently in the individual health insurance market? If so, how much are your rates likely to increase, if you don't mind my asking?

If you currently get insurance through your employer, then the Marketplace is not for you, and your employer will almost certainly offer a better deal than the Marketplace.

 

[MysticalRockets]

Irregardless of their moral objections, its the law, upheld by the Supreme Court. Eventually, they will HAVE to pay.

Time to just sell the company and let somebody else run it. Someone who will obey the law.

Oh, and corporations aren't alive. They don't get to have moral objections.

 

[r1dermon]

This is hearsay, so take it for what its worth, but I "heard" that individual coverage will be the biggest gainer in the aca layout. In mass I heard that we saw double digit percentage drops in individual coverage premiums. Employer coverage went up, but at a slower rate than it had been.

Again...for what its worth...not sure if this will play out the same for the whole country...

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Irregardless of their moral objections, its the law, upheld by the Supreme Court. Eventually, they will HAVE to pay.

Time to just sell the company and let somebody else run it. Someone who will obey the law.

Oh, and corporations aren't alive. They don't get to have moral objections.

The biggest problem with allowing an exception to a uniform standard based on moral or religious objections is that there is no place to draw the line once you start down that path. One religion may have a moral objection to the morning after pill, another may have a moral objection to contraception in general, some may have moral objections to vaccines, transplants, surgery, or all of modern medicine. There are religions that do not allow medical treatment as we know it and basically put the fate of the sick wholly into God's hands. What if your only covered medical service in your employer's plan was prayer?

 

[MysticalRockets]

The biggest problem with allowing an exception to a uniform standard based on moral or religious objections is that there is no place to draw the line once you start down that path. One religion may have a moral objection to the morning after pill, another may have a moral objection to contraception in general, some may have moral objections to vaccines, transplants, surgery, or all of modern medicine. There are religions that do not allow medical treatment as we know it and basically put the fate of the sick wholly into God's hands. What if your only covered medical service in your employer's plan was prayer?

I agree completely, Thirsty. Its a slippery slope. What comes after that? You have to be a certain religion to work somewhere? Its a short leap to that.

 

[jderimig]

What if your only covered medical service in your employer's plan was prayer?

Then you are free to buy insurance in the private marketplace. I don't expect an employer to take care of me, just to pay me.

The constitutional arguments in support of Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius are sound as evidenced by the recent actions of the Federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

It ruled The court reasoned Hobby Lobby has, “established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm. But we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings on two of the remaining factors governing the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction.”

This will most likely be decided by SCOTUS but based on the rulings thus far it likely go either way.

Pregnency isn't an illness.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Then you are free to buy insurance in the private marketplace. I don't expect an employer to take care of me, just to pay me.

The constitutional arguments in support of Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius are sound as evidenced by the recent actions of the Federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

It ruled The court reasoned Hobby Lobby has, “established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm. But we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings on two of the remaining factors governing the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction.”

This will most likely be decided by SCOTUS but based on the rulings thus far it likely go either way.

Pregnency isn't an illness.

Yes, then you would be free to purchase in the individual market. But your employer would also not get credit for offering a plan that qualifies under the law, and would be subject to the fine/tax. My point was not that the employer mandate is a good or bad thing --- my point was that *IF* the law includes an employer mandate, then that mandate must include a standard for what qualifies, and the standard should not include exceptions based on the business owner's beliefs. Soon you would have no standard.

I actually agree that the employer mandate is not the best idea, and the appropriate role for an employer is to provide a job with pay.

And I agree that this may go to the SCOTUS.

 

[jderimig]

, and the standard should not include exceptions based on the business owner's beliefs. Soon you would have no standard.

Yes but defining a standard is a serious responsible endeavor and those standards have to be widely supported by the people. This element isn't.

At what level of popular support does tyranny begin? 50%, 60%?

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Yes but defining a standard is a serious responsible endeavor and those standards have to be widely supported by the people. This element isn't.

At what level of popular support does tyranny begin? 50%, 60%?

I'm thinking maybe contraception coverage is more popular that you think, and it probably falls short of tyranny.

 

[JPVegh]

I'm thinking maybe contraception coverage is more popular that you think, and it probably falls short of tyranny.

My wife got free contraception for the first few years of our marriage through the county health services. That was more than thirty years ago. Is this something that doesn't happen anymore? Our kids also got free vacinations through the same office.

 

[jderimig]

I'm thinking maybe contraception coverage is more popular that you think, and it probably falls short of tyranny.

Emergency contraception is a special case with the FDA acknowledging it is an abortifacient in nature. Contraception prevents fertilization.

 

[JStarStar]

Oh boy. Marching into politics, religion and abortion all on one thread.

 

[Cl(VII)]

At what level of popular support does tyranny begin? 50%, 60%?

Not to wade too deeply into a thread that appears to be careening toward the ditch, but the "T-word" really gets my hackles up.

Tyranny is not inextricably linked to the level of public support. Tyranny can be imposed by an individual leader with absolute power over everyone (enabled of course by the prevailing political structure), or impossed by a large margin of the populous on a small group (unfortunately, also often aided by the prevailing political structure).

For the record I don't think our political system, all be it imperfect, lends itself to the development of a tyrant. It was after all designed specifically to prevent such things, and is more up to the job than I think we like to believe. I think it does lend itslef to installation of leaders that >40% of the people (and often 50% or more of the people) do not like or agree with. Certainly I have not liked every counselman, mayor, state legislator, governor, representative, senator, president that has every "represented" me, and I voted for some of them I ended up loathing. That does not make them tyrants.

Lastly, I suspect those who have suffered under true tyranny may feel the word a bit over used.

 

[VonMises]

Oh boy. Marching into politics, religion and abortion all on one thread.



View attachment 144647

Apparently some people are allowed to voice thier views if it supports socialism.:eyeroll:

 

[jderimig]

Tyranny can be imposed by an individual leader with absolute power over everyone (enabled of course by the prevailing political structure), or impossed by a large margin of the populous on a small group (unfortunately, also often aided by the prevailing political structure).

You are correct. I was referring to the lessor form of "tyranny by the majority" semantic used in current political science. The US is no danger of the true tyrants (in the short term) that is common through out the globe even currently.

And it is correct that this thread is heading towards Goodwin's Law pretty soon and I will end my contributions to it and stick to threads on rocket electronics and things that are much more less controversial. Hobby Lobby will in business for a long time and politicians will continue to buy votes at the expense of our individual freedoms just as the sun will rise in the east.