Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

The values of an individual

April 3, 2014

To the editor: Toward the end of the lengthy syndicated column “Hobby Lobby case a slippery slope” (April 1, 2014) the writer states, “If a Hobby Lobby executive has no interest in contraceptive......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Apr-17-14 11:11 AM

No Hartman, I didn't miss the point on the braces. I just got tired of you not responding to direct questions and twisting my statements to suit your political views.

I am glad to see HL is not as shorted sighted as you are. They invest in companies that may not have 100% the same views as they do but still produce other excellent products. Bayer Aspirin Cardio, Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems, Pfizer Centrum Vitamins, Advil, just to mention a few.

Your a good little Obama drone. Direct the forum away from the questions so you don't have take a stand and actually give an honest answer.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-16-14 5:03 PM

In reference to the braces Scout, as usual, you have completely missed the point.

But hey Scout, we should all be grateful for the Hobby Lobby investments in Bayer and Pfizer that will make it possible for more and more women to access IUD’s and “morning after pills” well into the future.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-16-14 2:07 PM

Your last line. By the statements you have made it sounds like you have no experience with employer sponsored health plans there for could not be sharing in the cost. Or you are simply being argumentative. Which is it Hartman ?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-16-14 2:00 PM

As usual Hartman you will not answer any questions. You only make more argumentative statements. Are you saying I should sue for braces if they are being denied for moral reasons ?

HL is not denying health care. They are simply not providing funds for abortions & the morning after pill. The argument that an employer does not have to fund abortions is self supporting to any rational individual. It was the ACA that started this controversy by requiring health care plans to fund the morning after pill. Do you really believe we are better off with a law that forces private companies to fund employee abortions ? It's a simply yes or no question.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-16-14 9:50 AM

"I purchase mine through my employer and share the cost in similar ratios stated by Merritt. Should I be suing because they don't cover braces?"

Don't be ridiculous Scout, is the coverage for braces being denied for moral reasons?

Obviously, you are unable to support your argument that an employer has a right to deny healthcare to their employee's based on moral objections, so instead you bring up the ACA. BTW, you will lose that argument too.

Scout, if I have never answered who provides my healthcare then what statements could I have made that would lead you to think I don’t share the cost of insurance with my employer? That makes no sense.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-15-14 11:26 AM

Did you see the latest insurance numbers from Maryland ? After ACA enrollment they have a net loss of 13,000 with insurance coverage and are abandoning the federal website after spending $125 million on it. This Obama care is really wonderful !

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-15-14 11:23 AM

Who provides your health care Hartman ? I seen this question asked several times but have never seen you answer. By your statements I don't think you are sharing the cost of it with an employer and probably never have. I purchase mine through my employer and share the cost in similar ratios stated by Merritt. Should I be suing because they don't cover braces ? If I elect Obama Care will they cover braces ?

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-15-14 11:17 AM

According to your beloved Obama Care an employer does have the right to regulate what is in a health care plan offered by your employer. As long as the plan meets the qualifications listed in the ACA the employer can regulate anything beyond those standards. And if you accept Justice Sotomayers advice, who has many of the same political views as Hartman, HL would be better off canceling all employer provided health care plans. No I do not believe an employer can regulate what an employee does on vacation and the same principal does not apply.

No, the statement about share holder meetings was not a joke. Have you attended a shareholder meeting at Bayer or Pfizer ? Have you questioned HL's investment committee about this ? If you haven't you are totally unqualified to make statements like you have. If profit is the main concern for companies like this answer this. Why is Chick Fil A closed on Sundays ? Got to hurt profits,

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-14-14 4:52 PM

You claim HL has the right to regulate employee healthcare choices because healthcare is a benefit provided by HL. The same principles apply to employee vacation time, so why don’t you agree HL has the right to regulate employee activities during vacation periods?

"As a large share holder in these companies did you ever consider perhaps HL is attempting to restrict some of the products they object to?"

Is that a joke, Scout? If not then obviously you don't understand what motivates investors. No one could be naive enough to believe either Bayer of Pfizer would sacrifice profit to placate the self-righteous owners of Hobby Lobby.

The simple fact is Scout, HL is profiting from investments in products they feel are morally wrong to use. Clearly, HL does not allow morality to affect their investment strategy, so why should it affect employee healthcare?

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-12-14 7:56 PM

Investing in a company that makes a product you do not approve of. You chose to ignore all the other products made by Bayer and Pfizer that are used for different things. As a large share holder in these companies did you ever consider perhaps HL is attempting to restrict some of the products they object to ? Until you sit in on shareholder meetings and find out what HL's participation is I suggest you stick to the facts. I know that is a foreign idea to you but give it a try.

Your final line. HL does not say employees are not allowed to take the pill, they are saying HL will not pay for it. Major difference.

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-12-14 7:49 PM

No Hartman, HL does not have the right to tell an employee what to do on vacation. That is my point, HL does not try to and this was a topic brought up by you to muddy the discussion.

Evidently you are either totally ignorant on how health insurance is provided to employees or you just ignore the facts. An employer selects the plan and what is included and the employee is free to participate or not. My dental plan does not include braces. Should I take that to the Supreme Court too ?

Your third paragraph makes no sense.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-12-14 4:52 PM

Scout, HL pays an employee on vacation, therefore does HL have the right to prevent that employee from obtaining an abortion during their vacation? Yes or no.

How much of the healthcare benefit belongs to the employee, 10%,50%,100%? How much belongs to the employer, 10, 50, 100%?

How does HL benefit from their investment in Bayer and Pfizer if they don't want women using some of their products Scout?

HL (and apparently you) believe its morally acceptable to benefit from the manufacture and distribution of the "morning after" pill, so why then don't you also find it acceptable to allow an employee to take the pill?

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-11-14 4:24 PM

Your chasing your own tail again Hartman. Are you saying HL should control what individuals should do on their vacation time or are you saying HL supports employee time off by not controlling what they do on vacation ? Appears to me they provide health insurance and paid vacations, they just don't want to pay for morning after pill or abortions due to religious beliefs.

As far as investments, what about all the other products Bayer & Pfizer produce ? So your opinion is if you don't agree with 100% of what a company does you should ignore them totally ?

The moral of Hartmans story "don't allow facts and common sense to interfere with rhetoric elimination of religious freedom".

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-14 1:24 PM

I'd really love to see the breakdown in policy premiums for plans that include covering the morning after pill and plans that do not. I'm guessing that there's not much difference (if any) since they're pobably lumped in with birth control pills. By the way, something like 61% of birth control pill (or other contraception device) users take them for reasons other than contraception--usually for abnormal menstrual issues, polycystic ovaries, endometriosis, etc.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-14 10:28 AM

Hobby Lobby provides benefits to their employees including health insurance and paid vacations. So while Hobby Lobby objects to employees receiving reproductive health care that include access to “Plan B” or “Morning After” medications they are apparently willing to pay for whatever time and effort an employee may spend in support of abortion rights while on vacation.

The fact is, the owners of Hobby Lobby are hypocrites. They insist it violates their religious beliefs to provide women with access to medicines which THEY claim, induces abortion. Yet Hobby Lobby has $73 million dollars invested in compainies like Bayer and Pfizer which create and distribute Cytotec, Mirena, Skyla and Prostin E2, all of which are drugs they insist their employees should not be allowed to access.

What’s the moral to this story? Don’t allow religious beliefs to stand in the way of potential investment earnings.

11 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-09-14 10:44 AM

HL is not trying to make moral choices or force their values on employees by telling them they cannot use the morning after pill. HL is simply saying they will not pay for it. To the best of my knowledge HL has never told an employee they cannot use it. In contrast a group is trying to force HL to pay for it against their religious beliefs. So who is really forcing their values or lack of values on the other side ? Every insurance plan allows you to go outside the plan and pay for additional items yourself. Let's take Merritt's dollars amounts which I believe are very accurate and Justice Sotomayers statement and combine them in one very possible outcome. HL takes Sotomayers advice and cancels employee coverage so they do not have to pay for the morning after pill or abortions. They pay the fine and save money. All their employees go to Obama Care only without the employer subsidy. What kind of coverage do you think they will get for $6,100 ?

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-14 7:14 PM

All insurance policies have limitations on coverage. It is a real waste to spend so much time and effort contesting this one when there are so many other restrictions limiting patients.

1 Agrees | 15 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-14 7:07 PM

HL is not trying to force their moral values on anyone. Quite the opposite, it is a few who are trying to force HL to submit to their moral values by forcing them to pay for the morning after pill.

5 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-14 7:00 PM

A decision made by an employee to use a "morning-after" pill has no effect on the lifestyle choices of the employer, 56two58. Likewise, the lifestyle or faith choices an employer chooses, such as Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddist, etc. should have no bearing on the lifestyle, faith or healthcare choices their employee makes. Its really that simple.

14 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-14 6:56 PM

Another issue being driven by foot stompers, other wise known as the left. There is sufficient discussion about when life actually begins to say it it's is a matter of interpretation. Given that it is unfair to require any company or individual to provided the morning after pill if they feel it violates their religious beliefs. So what we have is a few gimmes that may cost every employee at HL their employer sponsored coverage. If you need this pill so frequently maybe you need to consider a new form of birth control.

3 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-14 4:19 PM

What type of a plan could I get on the exchange for $13,764? Right now, this is what my employer is paying for my HIGH deductible plan. Okay, then I pay an additional $6,150. Is there anyone out that believes I can get a better deal for $20k a year than a high deductible plan? GETTING SCREWED!! Give me the difference and I can do better.

2 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-14 4:00 PM

The amount a corporation is spending on a person to cover them is more than they would have to pay based on their income. How many of these people would be net ahead if their employer would simply pay them the difference and bought their own insurance? Get rid of the employer mandate completely. People working for $12 an hour for a large corporation are getting hosed.

6 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-14 3:23 PM

CrunchyCon - Yes, "growth" and "development" are distinct phenomena. Growth is "increasing cell size or number" (a cell has to actively make more molecules to get bigger), while development is "production of structures or cells that differ from the origin". Changing from totipotent to pluripotent would indeed constitute "development", but I have exhausted my meager knowledge of embryonic development and will have to look up when that happens and whether the cells shed from the blastocyst are totipotent or not.

12 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-14 1:43 PM

Grrr. I have yet to figure out the exact character count on this dang thing. My last comment should end: "Isn't this 'development' of a sort?"

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-08-14 1:42 PM

Cont'd: >>>"How about any of the cells discarded from the blastocyst prior to implantation?" Definitely entities. A question: Do any of those cells ever have the *capacity* to become adult humans of their own (i.e. twin creation) or are they just extraneous material, too far along for this? If they are, then it seems to me they would be a candidate for an organism in their own right.

>>>"the embryo does not grow, but simply divides multiple times" "Growth" might not have captured my intended sense. I wasn't talking about growth in size, per se. More "development" and/or "assimilating matter into iself", I guess. But now I'm confused, though, by how you are defining "development" in the "Growth and development appear not to start UNTIL successful implantation" comment. I thought the process from zygote to blastocyst involved a progression from totipotent cells to pluripotent cells. Isn't thi

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 53 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web