Abortion and Politics

[MaddogLutheran]

Oh but I do, "Chuck".  So please stop trolling me, and perhaps read carefully what I have previously written, AND what Hobby Lobby is arguing, AND the specific accusation of hypocrisy being leveled at them (repeated uncritically by Mr. Teigen).

What's with the quotation marks? Are you incapable if reading a name or a signature? Or is it just your nature to be disagreeable?

Yes, it might be more morally consistent for them not to offer such investment options in their 401K plan, and yes of course, they have control over that--I am fully aware of that, and was when I wrote what I did previously.

Yet you previously wrote:

That it is the employee who makes the investment decision, not the employer.  UPDATE (anticipating): even for the company match.

So which is it? The employee or the employer. You seem to be very confused.

And speaking of trolls, maybe it's not a good thing to accuse the moderator of being one.  Just saying.

Yes. You would seem to be an expert.

I respectfully request that you repent of that last sentence, as well as calling me confused.  If you read again what I have written, and what Professor Yakimow also wrote on this thread (which expounds on my previous point), it might become clear to you.  Unless you are just nitpicking because you disagree with my point of view.  But I'll help you out a bit, just this once:  the employer is responsible for the investment options, but it is the employee who controls where any of his money is directed, i.e. the "investment decision".  No need to be confused.

Sterling Spatz

[Brian Stoffregen]

Well, maybe they don't choose to  micromanage the 401k programs of the Hobby Lobby employees, but it certainly appears that they would like to micromanage their sex lives.  Is this not hypocrisy?

I removed my previous post, but you beat me with your response.  You still persist in characterizing this case as a micromanagement of employees' sex lives despite, as I said in my removed post, multiple sourced clarifications and corrections by others.  Why?  I'm beginning to think that there is a larger or different underlying issue in this for you, but cannot even fathom what it might be.

Saying that refusing to pay for someone's contraception amounts to "micromanaging" their sex lives is, well, hard to take seriously.

I don't think that you statement is quite right. Hobby Lobby is refusing to allow their health benefit carrier to provide free contraception. We don't know if that coverage that includes free contraception would cost any more than coverage that does not cover it. Thus, they are not "paying" for it. They are refusing to provide it.

[MaddogLutheran]

Well, maybe they don't choose to  micromanage the 401k programs of the Hobby Lobby employees, but it certainly appears that they would like to micromanage their sex lives.  Is this not hypocrisy?

I removed my previous post, but you beat me with your response.  You still persist in characterizing this case as a micromanagement of employees' sex lives despite, as I said in my removed post, multiple sourced clarifications and corrections by others.  Why?  I'm beginning to think that there is a larger or different underlying issue in this for you, but cannot even fathom what it might be.

Saying that refusing to pay for someone's contraception amounts to "micromanaging" their sex lives is, well, hard to take seriously.

I don't think that you statement is quite right. Hobby Lobby is refusing to allow their health benefit carrier to provide free contraception. We don't know if that coverage that includes free contraception would cost any more than coverage that does not cover it. Thus, they are not "paying" for it. They are refusing to provide it.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.  It's only "free" because the government is mandating it for everybody and therefore the insurance companies are not allowed to itemize the pricing for it.  That's like wanting to buy a car, but the only one on the dealer lot has a sunroof, which you don't want, because you don't like sunroofs and don't want to spend the extra money anyway.  The salesmen tells you he can get you the exact same model, just without the sunroof--but the price will be the same as the one with the sunroof.

[Steven Tibbetts]

Well, maybe they don't choose to  micromanage the 401k programs of the Hobby Lobby employees, but it certainly appears that they would like to micromanage their sex lives.  Is this not hypocrisy?

Norman, I shall be gentler than my initial reaction: that is a load of horse manure.

And that is hypocrisy.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Well, maybe they don't choose to  micromanage the 401k programs of the Hobby Lobby employees, but it certainly appears that they would like to micromanage their sex lives.  Is this not hypocrisy?

I removed my previous post, but you beat me with your response.  You still persist in characterizing this case as a micromanagement of employees' sex lives despite, as I said in my removed post, multiple sourced clarifications and corrections by others.  Why?  I'm beginning to think that there is a larger or different underlying issue in this for you, but cannot even fathom what it might be.

Saying that refusing to pay for someone's contraception amounts to "micromanaging" their sex lives is, well, hard to take seriously.

I don't think that you statement is quite right. Hobby Lobby is refusing to allow their health benefit carrier to provide free contraception. We don't know if that coverage that includes free contraception would cost any more than coverage that does not cover it. Thus, they are not "paying" for it. They are refusing to provide it.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.  It's only "free" because the government is mandating it for everybody and therefore the insurance companies are not allowed to itemize the pricing for it.  That's like wanting to buy a car, but the only one on the dealer lot has a sunroof, which you don't want, because you don't like sunroofs and don't want to spend the extra money anyway.  The salesmen tells you he can get you the exact same model, just without the sunroof--but the price will be the same as the one with the sunroof.

I'm saying it a little differently, that the model with the sunroof costs exactly the same as the one without it; that it costs you nothing more to have the sunroof. It costs you nothing to have the sunroof, and you never have to use it if you don't want to. (I didn't particularly want a sunroof, but it came with the other options I wanted on my car, so I have a sunroof - and use it occasionally. I couldn't get the other options I wanted without also having the sunroof. That's the way the package came.)

[DCharlton]

I don't think that you statement is quite right. Hobby Lobby is refusing to allow their health benefit carrier to provide free contraception. We don't know if that coverage that includes free contraception would cost any more than coverage that does not cover it. Thus, they are not "paying" for it. They are refusing to provide it.

It is a lot closer to right than Norman's repeated assertion that Hobby Lobby wants to micromanage it's employees sex lives.   There is no evidence that failure to provide certain specific forms of contraception will prevent their employees from having sex.  Nor will it prevent them from purchasing any legal form of contraception.  And if it is true that "the one who pays the piper calls the tune" then Hobby Lobby will have no leverage at all in relation to it's employee's sex lives. 

Reportedly, Hobby Lobby pays beginning employees significantly more than the minimum wage.  So a Hobby Lobby employee without full contraceptive coverage (but with more than none) might be able to purchase contraceptives and still have more money than a Wal=Mart employee with totally free contraception. 

[MaddogLutheran]

I'm saying it a little differently, that the model with the sunroof costs exactly the same as the one without it; that it costs you nothing more to have the sunroof. [snip]

No, that's not reality.  I'll repeat--no such thing as a free lunch.  I'm sorry to break the news to you, your utopian economics are impossible, and unsustainable. Reality is why there are alot fewer people working at Higgins Road than a few years ago, and Augsburg Fortress has downsized considerably, just to use a couple of examples close to home.

[DCharlton]

I'm saying it a little differently, that the model with the sunroof costs exactly the same as the one without it; that it costs you nothing more to have the sunroof. [snip]

No, that's not reality.  I'll repeat--no such thing as a free lunch.  I'm sorry to break the news to you, your utopian economcs are impossible, and unsustainable. Reality is why there are alot fewer people working at Higgins Road than a few years ago, and Augsburg Fortress has downsized considerably, just to use a couple of examples close to home.

Does Brian mean that the manufacturers of contraceptives are willing to give them away for free!  Wow, if we could only convince them to give other forms of medication away for free, such as those for diabetes, I'd have a couple thousand more dollars in my pocket each year.

But wait, if they are giving them away for free, why do employees need insurance to pay for them.  Can't they get them free directly from the manufacturer.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I'm saying it a little differently, that the model with the sunroof costs exactly the same as the one without it; that it costs you nothing more to have the sunroof. [snip]

No, that's not reality.  I'll repeat--no such thing as a free lunch.  I'm sorry to break the news to you, your utopian economics are impossible, and unsustainable. Reality is why there are alot fewer people working at Higgins Road than a few years ago, and Augsburg Fortress has downsized considerably, just to use a couple of examples close to home.

And my father's business went bankrupt, and where my wife used to work went bankrupt. And yet they, and we, have survived. Two days ago, a truck grazed the side of my car in a parking lot. He left a lot of dirt, so I couldn't tell how much, if any, damage was done. I washed the car. There were noticeable scratches on the side. I filed a claim with my insurance. Took the car to the body shop. They looked at it. "I think we can just buff it out. If so, there won't be any charge." Took the car back in yesterday. They buffed out the scratches. There was no charge. Sometimes there are a free lunches. If I have a bigger problem where the insurance will pay, I'll be going back to that shop.


Will the insurance premiums be higher for a policy that covers free contraceptives than one that does not? That question has not been answered.


Insurance is a form of legal gambling. The insurance companies are gambling (based on the best statistical information possible) that enough people will not have major problems that will deplete their funds. We, who pay the premiums, are gambling that we will receive a return on our investment. If we never get sick, never go to the hospital, don't have to take prescription medicines, will have wasted all that insurance money. If we had invested it in other ways, we would have had a much better return than paying the insurance company.


I have a farmer friend who had figured the odds about crop insurance. He had it figured out that if he lost one crop every ten years, he'd come out money ahead, by putting what he'd spend on insurance in a savings/investment account.


Some insurance companies have figured out that giving some free things may save them money in the long run, e.g., one free physical every year to try and catch preventable problems before they require hospitalization or other therapies that requiring paying out big bucks. Thus, it is possible that insurance companies could conclude that free contraceptions that work well to prevent pregnancies is more cost effective than paying for the extra pregnancies that free contraceptions would have prevented.


I don't know the statistics, but I can imagine scenarios where insurance companies conclude that free contraception is cost effective in the long run.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I'm saying it a little differently, that the model with the sunroof costs exactly the same as the one without it; that it costs you nothing more to have the sunroof. [snip]

No, that's not reality.  I'll repeat--no such thing as a free lunch.  I'm sorry to break the news to you, your utopian economcs are impossible, and unsustainable. Reality is why there are alot fewer people working at Higgins Road than a few years ago, and Augsburg Fortress has downsized considerably, just to use a couple of examples close to home.

Does Brian mean that the manufacturers of contraceptives are willing to give them away for free!  Wow, if we could only convince them to give other forms of medication away for free, such as those for diabetes, I'd have a couple thousand more dollars in my pocket each year.

But wait, if they are giving them away for free, why do employees need insurance to pay for them.  Can't they get them free directly from the manufacturer.

It's not the manufacturers that would give them for free, but possibly the insurance companies. Because of my insurance coverage, I do have thousands of extra dollars in my pocket because I don't have to pay full price for my diabetes medicine. I am thankful.

[peter_speckhard]

I'm saying it a little differently, that the model with the sunroof costs exactly the same as the one without it; that it costs you nothing more to have the sunroof. [snip]

No, that's not reality.  I'll repeat--no such thing as a free lunch.  I'm sorry to break the news to you, your utopian economics are impossible, and unsustainable. Reality is why there are alot fewer people working at Higgins Road than a few years ago, and Augsburg Fortress has downsized considerably, just to use a couple of examples close to home.

And my father's business went bankrupt, and where my wife used to work went bankrupt. And yet they, and we, have survived. Two days ago, a truck grazed the side of my car in a parking lot. He left a lot of dirt, so I couldn't tell how much, if any, damage was done. I washed the car. There were noticeable scratches on the side. I filed a claim with my insurance. Took the car to the body shop. They looked at it. "I think we can just buff it out. If so, there won't be any charge." Took the car back in yesterday. They buffed out the scratches. There was no charge. Sometimes there are a free lunches. If I have a bigger problem where the insurance will pay, I'll be going back to that shop.


Will the insurance premiums be higher for a policy that covers free contraceptives than one that does not? That question has not been answered.


Insurance is a form of legal gambling. The insurance companies are gambling (based on the best statistical information possible) that enough people will not have major problems that will deplete their funds. We, who pay the premiums, are gambling that we will receive a return on our investment. If we never get sick, never go to the hospital, don't have to take prescription medicines, will have wasted all that insurance money. If we had invested it in other ways, we would have had a much better return than paying the insurance company.


I have a farmer friend who had figured the odds about crop insurance. He had it figured out that if he lost one crop every ten years, he'd come out money ahead, by putting what he'd spend on insurance in a savings/investment account.


Some insurance companies have figured out that giving some free things may save them money in the long run, e.g., one free physical every year to try and catch preventable problems before they require hospitalization or other therapies that requiring paying out big bucks. Thus, it is possible that insurance companies could conclude that free contraceptions that work well to prevent pregnancies is more cost effective than paying for the extra pregnancies that free contraceptions would have prevented.


I don't know the statistics, but I can imagine scenarios where insurance companies conclude that free contraception is cost effective in the long run.

Brian, someone else paying, which is what happens when someone donates their time and energy to do you a favor, does not equate to something be free. If it were that simple, why not leave Hobby Lobby alone and have someone donate contraceptives to all Hobby Lobby employees? It is a solution that costs nothing, right?

[Brian Stoffregen]

I'm saying it a little differently, that the model with the sunroof costs exactly the same as the one without it; that it costs you nothing more to have the sunroof. [snip]

No, that's not reality.  I'll repeat--no such thing as a free lunch.  I'm sorry to break the news to you, your utopian economics are impossible, and unsustainable. Reality is why there are alot fewer people working at Higgins Road than a few years ago, and Augsburg Fortress has downsized considerably, just to use a couple of examples close to home.

And my father's business went bankrupt, and where my wife used to work went bankrupt. And yet they, and we, have survived. Two days ago, a truck grazed the side of my car in a parking lot. He left a lot of dirt, so I couldn't tell how much, if any, damage was done. I washed the car. There were noticeable scratches on the side. I filed a claim with my insurance. Took the car to the body shop. They looked at it. "I think we can just buff it out. If so, there won't be any charge." Took the car back in yesterday. They buffed out the scratches. There was no charge. Sometimes there are a free lunches. If I have a bigger problem where the insurance will pay, I'll be going back to that shop.


Will the insurance premiums be higher for a policy that covers free contraceptives than one that does not? That question has not been answered.


Insurance is a form of legal gambling. The insurance companies are gambling (based on the best statistical information possible) that enough people will not have major problems that will deplete their funds. We, who pay the premiums, are gambling that we will receive a return on our investment. If we never get sick, never go to the hospital, don't have to take prescription medicines, will have wasted all that insurance money. If we had invested it in other ways, we would have had a much better return than paying the insurance company.


I have a farmer friend who had figured the odds about crop insurance. He had it figured out that if he lost one crop every ten years, he'd come out money ahead, by putting what he'd spend on insurance in a savings/investment account.


Some insurance companies have figured out that giving some free things may save them money in the long run, e.g., one free physical every year to try and catch preventable problems before they require hospitalization or other therapies that requiring paying out big bucks. Thus, it is possible that insurance companies could conclude that free contraceptions that work well to prevent pregnancies is more cost effective than paying for the extra pregnancies that free contraceptions would have prevented.


I don't know the statistics, but I can imagine scenarios where insurance companies conclude that free contraception is cost effective in the long run.

Brian, someone else paying, which is what happens when someone donates their time and energy to do you a favor, does not equate to something be free. If it were that simple, why not leave Hobby Lobby alone and have someone donate contraceptives to all Hobby Lobby employees? It is a solution that costs nothing, right?

Yes, someone is paying, the insurance company. It can be seen as an investment to avoid larger payments later. I remember the old Fram commercials: "You can pay me a little now for a new oil filter, or pay a mechanic a whole lot later for a new engine." The insurance pays a little now for contraceptions rather than pay a lot later for pregnancies.

[DCharlton]

The insurance pays a little now for contraceptions rather than pay a lot later for pregnancies.

The insurance "pays a little now."  That sounds like paying to me. 

Say it ain't so, Brian.  I thought this was all a valiant defense of individual freedom, but the way you describe it, it sounds less like a concern for individual freedom, and more like a desire to hold down the cost of surplus humans.  As Scrooge said,  "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

[Dan Fienen]

Well, maybe they don't choose to  micromanage the 401k programs of the Hobby Lobby employees, but it certainly appears that they would like to micromanage their sex lives.  Is this not hypocrisy?

I removed my previous post, but you beat me with your response.  You still persist in characterizing this case as a micromanagement of employees' sex lives despite, as I said in my removed post, multiple sourced clarifications and corrections by others.  Why?  I'm beginning to think that there is a larger or different underlying issue in this for you, but cannot even fathom what it might be.

Saying that refusing to pay for someone's contraception amounts to "micromanaging" their sex lives is, well, hard to take seriously.

I don't think that you statement is quite right. Hobby Lobby is refusing to allow their health benefit carrier to provide free contraception. We don't know if that coverage that includes free contraception would cost any more than coverage that does not cover it. Thus, they are not "paying" for it. They are refusing to provide it.

Just how hypocritical are you suggesting that Hobby Lobby is?  Are you suggesting that their real problem is not the morality of providing contraceptives, especially contraceptives with the potential of also acting as abortifacients but the cost?  That if it could be demonstrated that providing those contraceptives through the health plan without it costing the company anything that they would or should say, "fine, if it costs us nothing extra we're OK with providing them?"  Talk about hypocrites!  Oh wait, that is your idea of how they should think about it.

Dan

[Brian Stoffregen]

The insurance pays a little now for contraceptions rather than pay a lot later for pregnancies.

The insurance "pays a little now."  That sounds like paying to me. 

Say it ain't so, Brian.  I thought this was all a valiant defense of individual freedom, but the way you describe it, it sounds less like a concern for individual freedom, and more like a desire to hold down the cost of surplus humans.  As Scrooge said,  "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

Nope, I have no concern about surplus humans. I am concerned about reducing the number of abortions. I believe that the best way to do that is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The proper use of contraceptives does that. Making them free to the people and providing proper education about their use will reduce abortions, in my opinion.


So, the way I see it, those who seek to decrease the use of contraceptions or make them costly or harder for people to get will end up increasing the number of abortions. I believe that every pregnancy should be about a child who is wanted.