Skip to main content

View Diary: John Oliver shows why Hobby Lobby's arguments were so irrational (85 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not one pundit or comedian has brought up the fact (20+ / 0-)

    that Hobby Lobby had this coverage BEFORE the mandate.  That alone should have been reason NOT to hear this case at the SCOTUS level.  Hypocrisy will be the final nail in the coffin of the Rs.  Its coming, not soon enough for many, but its coming nevertheless.

    "We know too much to go back and pretend" - Helen Reddy (humble cosmos shaker)

    by ditsylilg on Thu Jul 10, 2014 at 08:27:57 AM PDT

    •  that's because their religion is (6+ / 0-)

      oppose what that evil black man wants

    •  No, it's the copay... (10+ / 0-)

      All ACA did was designate all forms of birth control as "preventative" healthcare, and thus available with no copay.  

      So even though their insurance plans HAD been covering all those birth control methods before, somehow making the woman pay a copay made it okay.  (even though the copay was never the full cost of the medication).

      But suddenly women are able to get birth control essentially for FREE  (along with many other preventative treatments), suddenly NOW it's a violation of their faith?

      Their insurance rates didn't change (at least, not over the cost of birth control -- insurance companies are fine with covering birth control, it's cheaper than maternity care and childbirth).  

      But HEAVEN FORBID a woman should be able to use birth control -- which implies, yes, she is having non-procreational SEX! -- without forking over money for it.  Suddenly it must mean Hobby Lobby is paying for it -- they're not, any more than they were before, it's INSURANCE, which is part of an employee's compensation package, not a freebie on the employer's part -- and so they're all up in self-righteous arms over it all.  

    •  If this was really an issue the government woul... (0+ / 0-)

      If this was really an issue the government would have raised it.

      If they really had it before it is quite possible they had it as part of a standard insurance company package and did not know it.

      If you actually look at Hobby Lobby, the sincerity of their beliefs looks real.

      •  Hooby Lobby's "Sincerity of belief." (5+ / 0-)

        As in their pension investments in companies that manufacture various contraceptives and related products?  Don't make me laugh - this is pure hypocrisy and everyone - including the SSCOTUS (stupid SCOTUS) - know it.  

        •  If they really had sincere belief, (0+ / 0-)

          wouldn't they claim that when God intends a pregnancy, he can take all that contraception stuff and "pretty much shut it down" so as to allow the pregnancy to continue?  

          Sorry, I'm an atheist and I'm not well versed in the power limitations of almighty invisible entities.

        •  Pension manages have a fiduciary duty to (0+ / 0-)

          beneficiaries.

          Anyone who is managing a pensions fund with any objective other than to generate sufficient returns to meet forecast liabilities with as little risk as possible is stealing from beneficiaries to fulfill personal objective.  The only except is if he has permission of EVERY beneficiary.

          Beneficiaries already have some rights to sue trustees in such cases and I support extending that.  For example, CALPERS touts on its website how it saved 2.4 million gallons of water last year (http://www.calpers.ca.gov/...).  That's a very good thing, but that does not pay beneficiaries' retirement or healthcare costs.  Unless CALPERS can show that it made these initiatives based on a cost benefit analysis indicating that this was a higher return use of funds than investing them the trustees should be personally liable.

          Hobby Lobby's owners may also follow the Christina precept "thou shalt no steal".

      •  They very sincerely believe a lie. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fhcec, Bluegeorgia, darleneh

        Plan B and Evra delay ovulation, not cause abortion. The mechanism of action of the Mirena and Paragard IUD's is that they prevent the egg and sperm from ever meeting, not cause abortion. Doesn't truth matter?

      •  Seriously???? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HSans, Bluegeorgia, darleneh

        I am QUITE sure SOMEONE knew exactly what they had coverage FOR and what they did NOT cover.  

        Some one AT HL.  Not just some suit sitting in the Ins Co's HQ.

        And they DID have this coverage for ALL legally prescribed drugs that can be used FOR birth control AND other needs.

        And then along came a radical right wing legal team just looking for a company to act all OUTRAGED at  being FORCED into paying for womens IMMORAL SEX.  Those SLUTS!  How DARE they!

        And---until a few days AFTER HL vs SCOTUS they WERE covering the REST of the birth control options just NOT the four they pegged--in ERROR---as "abortifactants".

        When I go to the drug store with an RX my plans Formulary is ALWAYS on file and I am told WHAT and HOW much they cover.  So--I don't buy this for a second. And contrary to some Govt Ins plans so called "Self Insured" companies are ALREADY much more restrictive on WHAT and HOW MUCH they cover.  

        For instance---my Plan is forced to COVER insulin--but unlike some Govt and other plans they are NOT forced to give it to me without a LARGE co-pay.  

        No---these Co's are just using their "Superior" position as a "Bully Pulpit" to preach their hatred of women.

        Next up-  if they find out their employees are spending their hard earned PAY CHECKS on birth control that THEY don't agree with---can they FIRE them?

        Oh but WAIT---this would undercut the bottom line of their 401(k) INVESTMENTS---in the very SAME drugs they are REFUSING to cover for their---employees.

        Can YOU say "Hypocrite"?

        Though ya could

        •  Why do you believe that? (0+ / 0-)
          I am QUITE sure SOMEONE knew exactly what they had coverage FOR and what they did NOT cover.  

          Some one AT HL.  Not just some suit sitting in the Ins Co's HQ.

          Hobby Lobby is not that big a company.  Seems quite likely to me that they told the insurance company "We'll cover birth control but not abortion or abortifacients" and left it at that.  

          Then when the mandate came out there was a lot of talk in faith based circles about what was and was not OK and the Hobby Lobby principals probably started asking questions about what exact birth control they were covering.

          Again, if you think this was really an issue then why do you think the government did not raise it?

          Next up-  if they find out their employees are spending their hard earned PAY CHECKS on birth control that THEY don't agree with---can they FIRE them?
          In a fire at will jurisdiction you can fire people for pretty much any non-discriminatory reason.  For example, you could fire someone for being an odd number of inches tall.

          It would be up to the employees to prove that firing them for using birth control that the employer does not disagree with is religious or perhaps sexual discrimination.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site