It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Hobby Lobby wins Supreme Court case, limits the ACA contraception mandate

page: 72
<< 69  70  71   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:09 PM

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: kaylaluv

But that "transaction" may trigger the amounts to be "earned" income and become taxable.

It doesn't have to trigger taxes -- the IRS could set up the rules any way it wants. The rule could be that any employee money that goes directly into a health insurance pool doesn't get taxed as earned income. Does the employer currently pay taxes on the money they pay for health insurance (i.e., would the govt be losing out on tax dollars they would normally get from the employer on that money)? Not sure...

posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:17 PM
a reply to: kaylaluv

It doesn't have to trigger taxes -- the IRS could set up the rules any way it wants.

But I think it would.

You would have to change the law or regulation.

posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:55 PM
Is there a difference between health insurance and healthcare?

IMHO the ACA confuses people regarding the two terms by trying to make them interchangeable, they are not the same. The ACA did not do anything to address making healthcare nor health insurance affordable. IMO it is a miserable failure. Furthermore, until anyone actually addresses the issues that make healthcare unaffordable, health insurance costs will continue to rise.

I agreed with the ruling. I don't feel that a private closely held (read family) business (as opposed to a publically traded mega corp like wally world) should be forced to provide coverage for products/services that are against their religion.

To me, it seems that people don't realize that companies including Hobby Lobby have been able for around 40 years to determine what things are covered, to what extent they are covered and what things are not covered or excluded. Take some time to research the ERISA act of 1974 (I think it was 74) and how that act changed things regarding employee benefits. Look into what it actually costs to set up an Employee Benefit Plan. I worked for a TPA (third party administrator) that dealt exclusively with self funded plans of 100 employees or more.

It always bothered me that more people don't understand the actual concept of insurance. Especially health insurance.
It seems that the attitude was that I pay my premiums every month so everything should be covered because my doctor said I needed it. Health insurance plans are contracts. They list covered services/expenses and what services/expenses are not covered or are excluded. One of the main types of exclusion is that of medically necessity. Basest meaning is that if you don't get this product/service will you die? Example: Toenail fungus causing discolored or thick toenails is a medical illness/disease/condition that could be excluded as treatment is not medically necessary (or even considered cosmetic). Another would be Standard of Care. Example: My doctor says I have a bad ticker and that I need to start exercising and eating right. What do you mean that my insurance, that I play premiums for monthly, won't pay for my health club membership, swimming pool and my new cook/dietary consultant?

The point being Insurance (even the great "Cadillac" plans) has things that are covered and that aren't. It will always be that way. If you want to have everything covered you need to start saving all your money.

I am also here in OKC. This is home to the Green family and Hobby Lobby. (And the Brown family and 7-11 stores) I went to school across the street from their corporate offices (although they hadn't been built at the point that I was in school), I grew up within bike distance to the second store that they opened and bought models and model rockets from them. In my experience working for a business affiliate of theirs and that of people that I know that work/ed for Hobby Lobby, the Green family are real people and are religious and they do their best to do treat their employees fairly. I have always heard that it is a good job. I hear that the Greens have the same health coverage as their employees do.

On the 401k issue, Mother Jones is spinning to make a big deal out of nothing. Good 401k plans/index plans have diversity for reasons. Ever heard "Don't put your eggs in one basket"? BTW, do these questionable companies only make birth control pills/devices or are the divested into other areas for example CNS drugs? Bottom line: The Green family ie Hobby Lobby has allowed their 401k plan to be operated by an administrator (ie.. they let professional investment people handle that money while handling their business of growing Hobby Lobby).

Deny Ignorance....yeah.

posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 05:31 PM

Talking about this is a total waste of time.

edit on R002014-07-04T18:00:57-05:00k007Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 06:13 PM

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: nenothtu

However, the analogy is imperfect - if he hands me cash, then no, he doesn't get to say what I spend it on. IF, however, he's paying bills directly to the provider, then of course he has to know what it's being spent on. Otherwise, he can't pay the bills at all, and I have to.

THIS is the case with most insurance plans - they don't just hand you cash and say "go wild with it" - they pay the medical bills.

The employer doesn't pay the medical bills. The employer pays the insurance company. The insurance company pays the medical bills.

Not so in the case of Hobby Lobby - they are self-insured. They are not buying into or being underwritten by an outside insurance agency. Don't take my word for it - check it out for yourself. A good place to start is Snopes.

But, you raise an interesting point. Maybe this is a way around this silly Supreme Court ruling. Make Hobby Lobby take the total amount they would pay the insurance company directly for the policy, and have them hand a proportionate amount of that total to each employee in their paycheck (as compensation). Then have each employee's portion of that cash immediately go into a pot that goes to the insurance company. As part of the terms of employment, the employee signs a release form, allowing that money to be taken back out of their paycheck and into the health insurance pot. For a brief second, that cash was handed over to the employee, thus rendering Hobby Lobby's decision on what it covers invalid. Hobby Lobby is off the hook with God, because they gave the money to the employee. Now legally (and morally), it's the employee's money that's going to the insurance company, not Hobby Lobby's money. Just might work!

I don't think that would work, for a couple of reasons - the first is that the "insurance company" is Hobby Lobby. The concept of "self insurance" is that one sets aside a certain amount of money calculated on schedules and probabilities of an insurable event happening. It's my understanding that Hobby Lobby sets aside the money, and then covers the bills if the event arises.

The second is that in doing so, the employer would no longer be providing coverage as required by ACA.

Maybe you can work on that idea and come up with another workaround.

edit on 2014/7/4 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 12:53 PM
a reply to: nenothtu

Yes, but even if it is self-insured, if the money being set aside is technically the employees' money, not Hobby Lobby's...

You might get around the requirement of the company providing the insurance, because H.L. is providing it by providing the "pot" to hold the money that's set aside, and providing the money to the employees (as compensation above and beyond their existing salary) that gets put in the pot.

Even so, my solution was pretty much tongue-in-cheek. I think it's kinda silly to believe that God is so concerned with the dollars and cents part of it, and that someone could be off the hook with God by playing a "shell game switcheroo" with the money used to purchase these "sinful" contraception devices. If it was possible theoretically and legally, do you think Hobby Lobby would agree to do it that way? Probably, and that's what's so silly about the whole thing, IMHO.

new topics

<< 69  70  71   >>

log in