WWTBAM Bored

We need to have a discussion about hypocrisy in general. Forget the fact that Hobby Lobby won on four particular abortifacients, or that their employees can CHOOSE mutual funds that are administered independently that may have contraceptive companies in their portfolios. Federal mandates much?

Let's ask the rabidly anti-oil/gas/fracking/industrial complex peeps when they're going to divest themselves of and boycott phones, computers, cars, Crocs, laminated sheet protectors, drivers licences, pet bowls, printers, dishware, combs, FB, water bottles and yada.

Oh, and every corporation, whether it's a Mafia owned line of holding companies, or a mom and pop, is founded by a person or people, represents actual people, and isn't some artificial intelligence sprung from the matrix.

You mean Hobby Lobby offers it's employees a 401k plan and actually pays them enough that they can invest? Wow?

What I find unbelievable is the energy put into this by the pro-choice folks. It seems as if the world will end if there is not universal free access to abortions for any reason for any age.

And yet they ignore or write off the real issues of the day. There is an absolute humanitarian crisis at the Texas border and our federal government is trying to keep the lid on it.

How many headlines about Hobby Lobby vs the crisis at our border? What crisis? Exactly.

Boarder ISWYDT

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Boarder ISWYDT

Damn IPhone autocorrect.

Oh well. This is my biggest concern right now. My cup is almost empty.

The companies Hobby Lobby invests in are: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis ACT, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer PFE, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca AZN, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna AET and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

http://bit.ly/HobbyLobbyHypocrisyScandal

BackInTex wrote:You mean Hobby Lobby offers it's employees a 401k plan and actually pays them enough that they can invest? Wow?

What I find unbelievable is the energy put into this by the pro-choice folks. It seems as if the world will end if there is not universal free access to abortions for any reason for any age.

And yet they ignore or write off the real issues of the day. There is an absolute humanitarian crisis at the Texas border and our federal government is trying to keep the lid on it.

How many headlines about Hobby Lobby vs the crisis at our border? What crisis? Exactly.

If you'd have pulled your head out you'd have seen Obama on TV talking about the Central American children.

Bob Juch wrote:The companies Hobby Lobby invests in are: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD, and Actavis ACT, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include Pfizer PFE, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce abortions; Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and Mirena; AstraZeneca AZN, which has an Indian subsidiary that manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also invested in Aetna AET and Humana, two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in many of the health care policies they sell.

http://bit.ly/HobbyLobbyHypocrisyScandal

Bob, who owns the 401(k) investment assets? Is it the owners of Hobby Lobby or the individual employee investors?

Spoiler

Arrange a trust for the plan’s assets – A plan’s assets must be held in trust to assure that assets are used solely to benefit the participants and their beneficiaries. The trust must have at least one trustee to handle contributions, plan investments, and distributions. Since the financial integrity of the plan depends on the trustee, selecting a trustee is one of the most important decisions you will make in establishing a 401(k) plan.

Beebs52 wrote: Oh, and every corporation, whether it's a Mafia owned line of holding companies, or a mom and pop, is founded by a person or people, represents actual people, and isn't some artificial intelligence sprung from the matrix.

No, a corporation may "represent" actual people, but it is a separate legal entity and that's an important distinction that forms the basis for hundreds of years of contract law. The owners of Hobby Lobby can't just dip into the corporate till any time they want for some extra cash, the way I can withdraw from any of my accounts. If the owner or owners of a corporation do not treat the corporation as a separate legal entity, creditors of the corporation can come after the owner for the corporation's debts (including tort claims).

At one time, Ford Motor Company represented Henry Ford, but he's been dead for decades and the company is still going. The corporate structure allows companies to exist forever (theoretically) and accumulate money, property, and power over that period of time far more than any individual ever could.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Bob, who owns the 401(k) investment assets? Is it the owners of Hobby Lobby or the individual employee investors?

Spoiler

Arrange a trust for the plan’s assets – A plan’s assets must be held in trust to assure that assets are used solely to benefit the participants and their beneficiaries. The trust must have at least one trustee to handle contributions, plan investments, and distributions. Since the financial integrity of the plan depends on the trustee, selecting a trustee is one of the most important decisions you will make in establishing a 401(k) plan.

You just answered your own question. The trust owns the assets and the trust is controlled by the corporation. As an employee, I can invest my 401 money in any choice the employer offers but I can't just go out and select a mutual fund at random to invest in unless the employer offers it. So Hobby Lobby does control the funds that its employees have access to invest in.

silverscreenselect wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Bob, who owns the 401(k) investment assets? Is it the owners of Hobby Lobby or the individual employee investors?

Spoiler

Arrange a trust for the plan’s assets – A plan’s assets must be held in trust to assure that assets are used solely to benefit the participants and their beneficiaries. The trust must have at least one trustee to handle contributions, plan investments, and distributions. Since the financial integrity of the plan depends on the trustee, selecting a trustee is one of the most important decisions you will make in establishing a 401(k) plan.

You just answered your own question. The trust owns the assets and the trust is controlled by the corporation. As an employee, I can invest my 401 money in any choice the employer offers but I can't just go out and select a mutual fund at random to invest in unless the employer offers it. So Hobby Lobby does control the funds that its employees have access to invest in.

Like he said. You probably have never had one but all I've ever gotten when I had a choice, was which of several plans from the same company to use. For instance, 100%, stock+MMF, stock+T-bills, etc.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: Oh, and every corporation, whether it's a Mafia owned line of holding companies, or a mom and pop, is founded by a person or people, represents actual people, and isn't some artificial intelligence sprung from the matrix.

No, a corporation may "represent" actual people, but it is a separate legal entity and that's an important distinction that forms the basis for hundreds of years of contract law. The owners of Hobby Lobby can't just dip into the corporate till any time they want for some extra cash, the way I can withdraw from any of my accounts. If the owner or owners of a corporation do not treat the corporation as a separate legal entity, creditors of the corporation can come after the owner for the corporation's debts (including tort claims).

At one time, Ford Motor Company represented Henry Ford, but he's been dead for decades and the company is still going. The corporate structure allows companies to exist forever (theoretically) and accumulate money, property, and power over that period of time far more than any individual ever could.

Um, I don't recall denying that a corporation is a separate legal entity. There are lots of separate legal corporate entities or non-corporate entities folks may choose to create, for a variety of reasons. It still does not dispute the fact that people are still the creators of those entities; they did not just POOF! appear.

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Bob, who owns the 401(k) investment assets? Is it the owners of Hobby Lobby or the individual employee investors?

Spoiler

Arrange a trust for the plan’s assets – A plan’s assets must be held in trust to assure that assets are used solely to benefit the participants and their beneficiaries. The trust must have at least one trustee to handle contributions, plan investments, and distributions. Since the financial integrity of the plan depends on the trustee, selecting a trustee is one of the most important decisions you will make in establishing a 401(k) plan.

You just answered your own question. The trust owns the assets and the trust is controlled by the corporation. As an employee, I can invest my 401 money in any choice the employer offers but I can't just go out and select a mutual fund at random to invest in unless the employer offers it. So Hobby Lobby does control the funds that its employees have access to invest in.

Like he said. You probably have never had one but all I've ever gotten when I had a choice, was which of several plans from the same company to use. For instance, 100%, stock+MMF, stock+T-bills, etc.

Federal government mandating what I choose to invest in. Federal government mandating what I choose to invest in. Do you not see the difference?

Let's say Hobby Lobby is indirectly hypocritical because they don't hand pick their stocks.

SO WHAT?

They're offering their employees a CHOICE to participate, and to obtain all sorts of contraceptives, by the way, under their health plan, so they God forbid don't have to go walking down the street just drooling for sexual intercourse but skeered because noone is gonna give them a condom or some bc pills, which they could get anyway, but never mind reality.

Beebs52 wrote:Federal government mandating what I choose to invest in. Federal government mandating what I choose to invest in. Do you not see the difference?

No, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Federal government mandating what I choose to invest in. Federal government mandating what I choose to invest in. Do you not see the difference?

No, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

I was under the impression that the federal government was mandating, before this decision, Hobby Lobby to provide four particular means of birth control with which they disagreed (I'm not referring to the other parties involved in the decision). They successfully defeated that particular mandate. It has nothing to do with anything their 401ks may offer to their employees vis a vis birth control company stocks, whatever, because the federal government isn't mandating that they include or not include birth control stocks. Perhaps I didn't phrase it well, but I just don't see where hypocrisy charges trump not having the federal government intrude on just one more thing.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Federal government mandating what I choose to invest in. Federal government mandating what I choose to invest in. Do you not see the difference?

No, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

I was under the impression that the federal government was mandating, before this decision, Hobby Lobby to provide four particular means of birth control with which they disagreed (I'm not referring to the other parties involved in the decision). They successfully defeated that particular mandate. It has nothing to do with anything their 401ks may offer to their employees vis a vis birth control company stocks, whatever, because the federal government isn't mandating that they include or not include birth control stocks. Perhaps I didn't phrase it well, but I just don't see where hypocrisy charges trump not having the federal government intrude on just one more thing.

No, the ACA didn't require an employer to provide birth control, they required all insurance policies to cover birth control. Hobby Lobby also objected to insurance plans covering "related education and counseling" for contraception. They didn't object to just four particular means of birth control but all means.

Are you aware Hobby Lobby used to have insurance that covered birth control? They terminated that policy just days before filing the Federal lawsuit.

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: No, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

I was under the impression that the federal government was mandating, before this decision, Hobby Lobby to provide four particular means of birth control with which they disagreed (I'm not referring to the other parties involved in the decision). They successfully defeated that particular mandate. It has nothing to do with anything their 401ks may offer to their employees vis a vis birth control company stocks, whatever, because the federal government isn't mandating that they include or not include birth control stocks. Perhaps I didn't phrase it well, but I just don't see where hypocrisy charges trump not having the federal government intrude on just one more thing.

No, the ACA didn't require an employer to provide birth control, they required all insurance policies to cover birth control. Hobby Lobby also objected to insurance plans covering "related education and counseling" for contraception. They didn't object to just four particular means of birth control but all means.

Are you aware Hobby Lobby used to have insurance that covered birth control? They terminated that policy just days before filing the Federal lawsuit.

This is from Hobby Lobby's website:

http://www.hobbylobbycase.com/faq/

At any rate, Hobby Lobby stopped covering those drugs in its plan and took the health care contraceptive mandate to court, represented by the Becket Fund. From Politifact

They dropped coverage of specific drugs, not the policy.

It appears you are spreading untruths.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
I was under the impression that the federal government was mandating, before this decision, Hobby Lobby to provide four particular means of birth control with which they disagreed (I'm not referring to the other parties involved in the decision). They successfully defeated that particular mandate. It has nothing to do with anything their 401ks may offer to their employees vis a vis birth control company stocks, whatever, because the federal government isn't mandating that they include or not include birth control stocks. Perhaps I didn't phrase it well, but I just don't see where hypocrisy charges trump not having the federal government intrude on just one more thing.

No, the ACA didn't require an employer to provide birth control, they required all insurance policies to cover birth control. Hobby Lobby also objected to insurance plans covering "related education and counseling" for contraception. They didn't object to just four particular means of birth control but all means.

Are you aware Hobby Lobby used to have insurance that covered birth control? They terminated that policy just days before filing the Federal lawsuit.

This is from Hobby Lobby's website:

http://www.hobbylobbycase.com/faq/

It appears you are spreading untruths.

Hobby Lobby wrote:And again, Hobby Lobby offers a health care plan far more generous than most in the retail industry, including providing almost all of the contraceptives required under the Affordable Care Act at no additional charge.

This appears to me to be inaccurate. The whole point of the mandate challenged in the Hobby Lobby case is that these contraceptive methods must be provided at no additional charge. So it's not accurate to imply that the health plans of other retailers don't do so.

Bob Juch is arguing (not very articulately) that Hobby Lobby's treatment of 401(k) plans calls into question the sincerity of its owners' religious beliefs, so that they are being hypocritical. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: No, the ACA didn't require an employer to provide birth control, they required all insurance policies to cover birth control. Hobby Lobby also objected to insurance plans covering "related education and counseling" for contraception. They didn't object to just four particular means of birth control but all means.

Are you aware Hobby Lobby used to have insurance that covered birth control? They terminated that policy just days before filing the Federal lawsuit.

This is from Hobby Lobby's website:

http://www.hobbylobbycase.com/faq/

It appears you are spreading untruths.

Hobby Lobby wrote:And again, Hobby Lobby offers a health care plan far more generous than most in the retail industry, including providing almost all of the contraceptives required under the Affordable Care Act at no additional charge.

This appears to me to be inaccurate. The whole point of the mandate challenged in the Hobby Lobby case is that these contraceptive methods must be provided at no additional charge. So it's not accurate to imply that the health plans of other retailers don't do so.

Bob Juch is arguing (not very articulately) that Hobby Lobby's treatment of 401(k) plans calls into question the sincerity of its owners' religious beliefs, so that they are being hypocritical. --Bob

I already indicated my view on hypocrisy. Has nothing to do with anything, obviously, since the Supreme Court agreed with their case. Also, folks need to stop taking things out of context re: related education and counseling. That didn't apply to ALL birth control:
"and other individuals and organizations that object on religious grounds to providing insurance coverage for abortion-causing drugs and devices, and related education and counseling", only those specific abortion drugs they were contesting. It really IS about the beliefs concerning abortion, as much as y'all don't want to believe it.

Bob Juch wrote:

No, the ACA didn't require an employer to provide birth control, they required all insurance policies to cover birth control. Hobby Lobby also objected to insurance plans covering "related education and counseling" for contraception. They didn't object to just four particular means of birth control but all means.

Are you aware Hobby Lobby used to have insurance that covered birth control? They terminated that policy just days before filing the Federal lawsuit.

So your argument is that the ACA did not require an employer to provide birth control, just insurance. Would you agree that under the regulations promulgated under the ACA, if they did not provide a policy with all FDA approved forms of birth control they could be fined hundreds of millions of dollars?

Would you also concede that Hobby Lobby sued because they objected to just 4 of the birth control drugs HHS required to be covered, not all birth control drug coverages.

Would you agree that french fries cooked in vegetable oil flavored with beef tallow are not vegan?

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Bob Juch is arguing (not very articulately) that Hobby Lobby's treatment of 401(k) plans calls into question the sincerity of its owners' religious beliefs, so that they are being hypocritical. --Bob

I already indicated my view on hypocrisy. Has nothing to do with anything, obviously, since the Supreme Court agreed with their case. Also, folks need to stop taking things out of context re: related education and counseling. That didn't apply to ALL birth control:
"and other individuals and organizations that object on religious grounds to providing insurance coverage for abortion-causing drugs and devices, and related education and counseling", only those specific abortion drugs they were contesting. It really IS about the beliefs concerning abortion, as much as y'all don't want to believe it.

The Supreme Court noted that no one in the courts below had challenged the sincerity of the owners' beliefs so they assumed the beliefs to be sincere. This information about 401(k) plans (which invest in companies manufacturing the very methods that were the subject of the objection) challenges that assumption, particularly since there are mutual funds specifically designed to avoid such investments. --Bob

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

No, the ACA didn't require an employer to provide birth control, they required all insurance policies to cover birth control. Hobby Lobby also objected to insurance plans covering "related education and counseling" for contraception. They didn't object to just four particular means of birth control but all means.

Are you aware Hobby Lobby used to have insurance that covered birth control? They terminated that policy just days before filing the Federal lawsuit.

So your argument is that the ACA did not require an employer to provide birth control, just insurance. Would you agree that under the regulations promulgated under the ACA, if they did not provide a policy with all FDA approved forms of birth control they could be fined hundreds of millions of dollars?

Would you also concede that Hobby Lobby sued because they objected to just 4 of the birth control drugs HHS required to be covered, not all birth control drug coverages.

Would you agree that french fries cooked in vegetable oil flavored with beef tallow are not vegan?

1) Yes
2) No
3) Yes

Here's part of "Hobby Lobby vs US":

52. As part of their religious obligations, the Green family also provides excellent
health insurance coverage to Hobby Lobby's and Mardďs employees through a self-
insured plan. As in other aspects of the business, the Greens believe it is imperative that
their employee benefits are consistent with their religious beliefs.

53. The Green family's religious beliefs prohibit them from deliberately providing
insurance coverage for prescription drugs or devices inconsistent with their faith, in
particular abortion-causing drugs and devices.

Note it doesn't limit their object to just abortion-causing drugs and devices and did not list four drugs. Later items say they also object to IUDs.

I have a feeling that Koch Industries, the second largest privately held company in the United States, is behind this.

Bob Juch wrote:I have a feeling that Koch Industries, the second largest privately held company in the United States, is behind this.

If they are, good for them.

Bob Juch wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

No, the ACA didn't require an employer to provide birth control, they required all insurance policies to cover birth control. Hobby Lobby also objected to insurance plans covering "related education and counseling" for contraception. They didn't object to just four particular means of birth control but all means.

Are you aware Hobby Lobby used to have insurance that covered birth control? They terminated that policy just days before filing the Federal lawsuit.

So your argument is that the ACA did not require an employer to provide birth control, just insurance. Would you agree that under the regulations promulgated under the ACA, if they did not provide a policy with all FDA approved forms of birth control they could be fined hundreds of millions of dollars?

Would you also concede that Hobby Lobby sued because they objected to just 4 of the birth control drugs HHS required to be covered, not all birth control drug coverages.

Would you agree that french fries cooked in vegetable oil flavored with beef tallow are not vegan?

1) Yes
2) No
3) Yes

Here's part of "Hobby Lobby vs US":

52. As part of their religious obligations, the Green family also provides excellent
health insurance coverage to Hobby Lobby's and Mardďs employees through a self-
insured plan. As in other aspects of the business, the Greens believe it is imperative that
their employee benefits are consistent with their religious beliefs.

53. The Green family's religious beliefs prohibit them from deliberately providing
insurance coverage for prescription drugs or devices inconsistent with their faith, in
particular abortion-causing drugs and devices.

Note it doesn't limit their object to just abortion-causing drugs and devices and did not list four drugs. Later items say they also object to IUDs.

See the majority opinion at page 14 last paragraph.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
So your argument is that the ACA did not require an employer to provide birth control, just insurance. Would you agree that under the regulations promulgated under the ACA, if they did not provide a policy with all FDA approved forms of birth control they could be fined hundreds of millions of dollars?

Would you also concede that Hobby Lobby sued because they objected to just 4 of the birth control drugs HHS required to be covered, not all birth control drug coverages.

Would you agree that french fries cooked in vegetable oil flavored with beef tallow are not vegan?

1) Yes
2) No
3) Yes

Here's part of "Hobby Lobby vs US":

52. As part of their religious obligations, the Green family also provides excellent
health insurance coverage to Hobby Lobby's and Mardďs employees through a self-
insured plan. As in other aspects of the business, the Greens believe it is imperative that
their employee benefits are consistent with their religious beliefs.

53. The Green family's religious beliefs prohibit them from deliberately providing
insurance coverage for prescription drugs or devices inconsistent with their faith, in
particular abortion-causing drugs and devices.

Note it doesn't limit their object to just abortion-causing drugs and devices and did not list four drugs. Later items say they also object to IUDs.

See the majority opinion at page 14 last paragraph.

The Supreme Court majority actually went looking for support for their decision that was not brought up in arguments?