Health Care Thread

fanaskin_sl said:

America don't consume the oil from there for the most part we never really have, it's our pimp hand, our clients like japan and europe consume it and pay petro dollars for that consumption which provides the demand that allows massive amounts of money printing to be easily consumed, that's how it works. also the profits from oil in saudi arabia by arrangement a large part have to be reinvested in things like american and british arms manufacturers and businesses.

Click to expand...

Are your parents related to eachother?

Vaclav_sl said:

Hobby Lobby Invests In Abortion Pill Manufacturers

Click to expand...

The best part is in the Mother Jones article linked in the Huffington Post piece:

The Green's contention that the pills cause abortions is a central pillar of their argument for gutting the contraception mandate. Yet, for years, Hobby Lobby's health insurance plans did cover Plan B and Ella. It was only in 2012, when the Greens considered filing a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act, that they dropped these drugs from the plan.

Click to expand...

LOL Christ, I didn't read that (Mother Jones is too far left for me to stomach) that's even more hilarious.

Vaclav_sl said:

Hobby Lobby Invests In Abortion Pill Manufacturers

Saw this in my Facebook feed - hilarious...

Click to expand...

I have come to hate cigarettes. I think they are a murderous scourge, and among the most deadly products ever produced by man. With that in mind, if I was personally tasked with managing the retirement funds of 21,000 people, I wouldn't bat an eye investing in Phillip Morris. The company is obligated to its employers to maximize their employees return on their 401(k) investment.

So managing a 401k takes precedence over gods will?

Click to expand...

In the eyes of the court that takes the class action lawsuit which claims Hobby Lobby mismanaged employee retirement funds on the basis of personal moral principles, yes.

Hobby lobby doesn't want to cover birth control, but they are still willing to allow their employees retirement funds to benefit from investing in companies that produce birth control.

Hobby lobby is contractually bound to responsibly manage their employee 401(k)s, they are not contractually bound to provide assistance in preventing/murdering the unwanted children of their employees.

I don't like funding the military industrial complex or big oil, but if my employees ask why their retirement funds are performing like shit and I tell them "well, I didn't tell you, but I refused to include corporations like Exxon, Boeing, GM, and Halliburton in your investment portfolio because they are oppose to my morality", they would nail me to the wall in court. The Huffington Post headline would instead be "Hobby Lobby jeopardizes the future of their employees by crippling retirement portfolios with religion-based decisions".

In contrast, if I make the claim that I don't want to fund birth control because I don't think it is inclusive in the scope of "Health care" that I am responsible for providing as an employer, currently I have a leg to stand on in court.

In the face of clear legal defeat, most people will part with some of their moral convictions, especially people responsible for the livelihoods of over 20,000 other people.

Hobby lobby is basing its decisions on minimizing legal risk while maximizing profits, the religious component is just drumming up a base.

If there is more to it than that, then no, I don't think I understand. Are you sure you understand?

dak: The ability to deign to invest or disinvest in X or Y on opinions that are backed up by a history is perfectly valid. My old employer had an ex-employee try to sue us because we backed out of having our 401k invest into stores that supported the Grocery Unions - guess how that lawsuit turned out? [Hint: It didn't - it never saw the papers either - and we were larger than Hobby Lobby by about 300-400%]

Additionally if you actually read the article comments - they also were funding an insurance plan that provided such treatments until they were starting their ACA fight as well. (and they've got attribution)

1. Long before Obamacare, 28 states mandated contraceptives be included in all heath insurance policies:

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_I...

2. Hobby Lobby is in every one of those states and is already supplying contraceptive coverage to its employees.

3. If Hobby Lobby is so concerned about contraceptive coverage, why didn't they sue the States that require them to provide contraceptive coverage?

The majority of the other plaintiffs are in states that require contraception. Why didn't they sue?

4. Here's the thing that gives away the game:

Two of the plaintiffs were in states that DIDN'T required contraception and they yet those companies STILL provided contraceptive coverage, because it was a better and cheaper plan!!!! (Insurance companies know contraception is cheaper than pregnancies.)

Click to expand...

They don't give a shit about god dude, there is just significant currency, both political and real, in appealing to a conservative christian base.

It's not hypocrisy, it's just capitalizing on a group of powerful people (and masses of poor, opinionated nobodies) who happen to inadvertently benefit from your platform.

Idiots consumers and special interest groups that think religion actually factor into the equation at all are the only reason that organizations like Hobby Lobby even bother with making that component an issue.

dak: The ability to deign to invest or disinvest in X or Y on opinions that are backed up by a history is perfectly valid. My old employer had an ex-employee try to sue us because we backed out of having our 401k invest into stores that supported the Grocery Unions - guess how that lawsuit turned out? [Hint: It didn't - it never saw the papers either - and we were larger than Hobby Lobby by about 300-400%

Click to expand...

When you say "back up by a history" do you mean that you could make the claim that the "Grocery Union supporting" stores were under performing? I can easily see it getting dismissed if you could provide records demonstrating that their performance was subpar. Could the decision to exclude union shops be clearly and definitively linked to highly publicized statements that it is being done on a moral basis rather than maximizing profit? If not, again I can see this easily getting dismissed. Were the grocery unions willing to get behind that ex-employee and supply a significant investment in resources to fight your 80,000+ employee company? Also, when compared to ACA related birth control matters, there are decades of favorable legal precedent and substantial support for union busting actions, particularly when it directly involves your own company's service line.

The Hobby Lobby case is talking about exclusion of companies that are in a completely different and non-competing service line, which are are posting record profits. Also, Hobby Lobby is currently under intense media scrutiny on a hot topic issue (Personally, I think drawing heat by bringing morality into it rather than focusing solely on profit is a really risky legal move). The situation may be a bit different than yours was.

Additionally if you actually read the article comments - they also were funding an insurance plan that provided such treatments until they were starting their ACA fight as well. (and they've got attribution)

Click to expand...

Huffington post operatives: What? You're not buying the 401k dirt? Here, this dirt might stick instead!

Again, it's just a matter of people going "hur hur, ur a hypocrite" to an organization that was formed exclusively to extract profit from the masses. They just don't wanna have to pay more each month for their female employees bros, no invisible man in the sky, the religious component is just to win political favor and milk suckers.

Those grocery union supporting companies (some were shipping - it wasn't just "stores") were performing quite well at the time, that was the entire allegation of the ex-employee. And it had entirely to do with our company having an openly anti-union stance. (And was mostly about the truckers that supported the grocery unions - I think only Safeway's holding company was invested in at the time for what you'd normally think of - we were very invested in the trucking companies)

So one day into my new Obamacare plan (virtually identical to my Romneycare) and my gallbladder decided to declare a revolution against the proliteriate.

Will be interesting to see what the final bill ends up being considered the ER visit, hospital stay etc.

Noticed something interesting in the paperwork this morning when I was lucid enough to read it: observation status at a hospital. Not admitted so billed as outpatient, but taking up a room+nurse+scan+IV+drugs etc.

I think they will be changing my status to admitted now that I've been here awhile, but still a fascinating loophole for both the hospital system and insurance companies and another reason the out-of-pocket max may be a critical value even if you think you have all bases covered.

I knew all these lowlifes would start abusing healthcare and flood the system

Qhue_sl said:

So one day into my new Obamacare plan (virtually identical to my Romneycare) and my gallbladder decided to declare a revolution against the proliteriate.

Will be interesting to see what the final bill ends up being considered the ER visit, hospital stay etc.

Noticed something interesting in the paperwork this morning when I was lucid enough to read it: observation status at a hospital. Not admitted so billed as outpatient, but taking up a room+nurse+scan+IV+drugs etc.

I think they will be changing my status to admitted now that I've been here awhile, but still a fascinating loophole for both the hospital system and insurance companies and another reason the out-of-pocket max may be a critical value even if you think you have all bases covered.

Click to expand...

Was it a "Room" or one of the ER semi-rooms? [Basically in the hospitals here in MD - glass walls with curtains to block them out that could be opened or wall walls]

I've seen them do that but only with the ER rooms that are always categorized that way - and billing here has always followed suit with that, where the ER "outpatient" treatment is just listed as ER on the final bill to be more clear and the main hospital part being listed as inpatient.