Thread: Hobby Lobby

If my employer does a 401(K) match, can they refuse to allow me to invest in companies that violate their religious beliefs?

Originally Posted by Potter75

What if my company didn't want to pay for diabetes medicine because people should know better than to be overweight? Or for sickle cell medicine.....just because I don't really like AA people? Or maybe I don't feel like covering lung cancer treatment because I hate smokers. That okay? Because I don't really believe in those things, say. Say my religion was against gluttony, smoking, or AA people. (I know one of the three is a protected class, just go with me )

I dont think employers should be involved in insurance at all. I am all for contributions to a HSAs.

Originally Posted by GloriaInTX

That is exactly what it means.



Insured vs. Self-Insured Plans - FairHealth Educational Site

All you did was reinforce what I said. That just explains that the employer assumes the cost of the claims. It does NOT mean the employer gets to see what you are doing. That is a HIPAA violation.

Again, this is my Monday-Friday. I live and breathe health insurance for 37.5 hours a week. I'm well aware on what this means.

Originally Posted by mom3girls

I dont think employers should be involved in insurance at all. I am all for contributions to a HSAs.

Well I don't think that the unicorns should ever have flown away and abandoned us.

But they did.

And since employers ARE currently involved in insurance, unfortunately this is a discussion which we have to have. And within that discussion, our employers don't have a right to discriminate against me as a woman (or smokers, or AA people, or overweight people) because of their uneducated religious views when it comes to my uterus.

Originally Posted by mom3girls

I dont think employers should be involved in insurance at all. I am all for contributions to a HSAs.

You cannot have an HSA without participating in a high deductible health plan although it does not have to be an employer sponsored insurance. You can be a self pay insured and participate in an HSA.

Originally Posted by Potter75

What if my company didn't want to pay for diabetes medicine because people should know better than to be overweight? Or for sickle cell medicine.....just because I don't really like AA people? Or maybe I don't feel like covering lung cancer treatment because I hate smokers. That okay? Because I don't really believe in those things, say. Say my religion was against gluttony, smoking, or AA people. (I know one of the three is a protected class, just go with me )

Ya all those things are still different than telling someone that they must pay for something that is the equivalent of murder. All of those things are to help people get well, not to end a life. It would be more like saying the employer had to pay for a shot used to euthanize someone. And those things just give more reasons why the government shouldn't be mandating that employers must pay for healthcare.

Originally Posted by Jessica80

All you did was reinforce what I said. That just explains that the employer assumes the cost of the claims. It does NOT mean the employer gets to see what you are doing. That is a HIPAA violation.

Again, this is my Monday-Friday. I live and breathe health insurance for 37.5 hours a week. I'm well aware on what this means.

Ummm at some point someone has to process the claim and pay the bill. It's not like they can do that blindfolded. It may be that only the people whose job it is to pay that sees it, but someone does. Not that it matters. If those pills are on the list of things that are approved to be covered they will be paid for, if they are not then they won't, just like any other claim.

Originally Posted by GloriaInTX

Ya all those things are still different than telling someone that they must pay for something that is the equivalent of murder. All of those things are to help people get well, not to end a life. It would be more like saying the employer had to pay for a shot used to euthanize someone. And those things just give more reasons why the government shouldn't be mandating that employers must pay for healthcare.

Except that it isn't the equivalent to murder. Some people just like to say that, because it makes them feel superior and all judgey proud and like God or something. But these plans still pay for birth control, which is the exxxxact same thing. So it makes no sense, no sense at all.

Honestly its just funny you comparing this to ending an adult life. Its so...........out there.

But really I don't care if that is what you believe, its cool. Its just wrong and illegal, luckily.


And I don't get your last sentence. Aren't you mad that the government is offering an alternative TO employers paying for healthcare? And aren't you all "no employer is gong to offer healthcare anymore because of Obamacare" doomsday scenario a few debates ago? I'm getting confused now. Am I mixing up you and someone else?

Originally Posted by GloriaInTX

Ya all those things are still different than telling someone that they must pay for something that is the equivalent of murder. All of those things are to help people get well, not to end a life. It would be more like saying the employer had to pay for a shot used to euthanize someone. And those things just give more reasons why the government shouldn't be mandating that employers must pay for healthcare.

What is equivalent to murder? I hope you're not referring to the morning after pill. I still cannot grasp why anyone still thinks it's an abortion pill. Abortion pills are not sold OTC. Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted.

Originally Posted by mommytoMR.FACE

What is equivalent to murder? I hope you're not referring to the morning after pill. I still cannot grasp why anyone still thinks it's an abortion pill. Abortion pills are not sold OTC. Morning-after pills do not end a pregnancy that has implanted.

It is if you believe that life begins at conception not implantation.