Obamacare Could Ruin Hobby Lobby- A Great Crafts Chain

^^^
just for fun, I entered my whole family (youngest is still covered by Medicaid but I experimented) - $514.56 - a bit more than half my monthly income

Without the youngest - 434.70

Just me, $165 and change

I don't know if there was any other way to break the death-grip those three groups have on the system except to start with the insurers.

As for making things worse, that depends on whether or not you accept the official timeline:

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

One suggestion I've seen thrown around here a lot was to open up insurance across state lines--at the very least, it would break up the monopolies that exist within each state, which would have driven prices down a little bit.

IIRC, Hobby Lobby is not a publicly traded corporation.

Absolutely. And any attempt to do that was blocked by the insurers big time. IIRC, the ACA does break down those state by state barriers.

So instead of a greedy board and greedy stakeholders, it's just a greedy board. Not seeing a material difference in terms of their disdain for their employees.

A couple of interesting points that seem to get overlooked about Obamacare: states can opt if they want to try something else that will achieve the goal of universal coverage. Vermont has started on the route of single payer, although whether such a small state can pull it off, remains to be seen. Also the health care exchanges were dreamed up by the Republicans as a means of maximizing state's rights to decide what kind of health they want. Idaho (which has a Republican governor) has decided set up its own exchange, while TEA Party hero Rick Scott, has so far refused in Florida, thus ceding more power to the Federal Government and thus making it bigger and stronger.

What makes you think they don't treat their employees well?

How do you know they don't pay wages well above average?

And they do offer insurance IIRC. Just not those that cover birth control methods they consider abortive. (IUDs IIRC).

What does publicly traded have to do with anything? I highly doubt anyone (with an ounce of sense) would operate a retail chain as a sole proprietorship or partnership.

Holy shit you're stupid.

http://www.hobbylobby.com/our_company/our_company.cfm

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "privately held company".

Dayton is right. While Hobby Lobby is a Corporation (probably a "C" Corporation for tax purposes) and has to follow certain laws in order to maintain the Corporation it is not a publicly traded company. All stock is held by the owners and/or a handful of other people. Stock can be traded but it is done privately.

Privately held corporations also have less obligations on them when it comes to reporting financial statements. Pretty much they only have to report to the actual shareholders and not the public at large.

And since most privately held companies have a tiny number of shareholders the executives in charge are able to make decisions faster, are more flexible to change, and can focus on long term growth instead of the silly nonsense of "quarterly earnings".

Lots of huge companies are privately held: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/21/private-companies-11_land.html

I will say however that Dayton's response to Garamet is wrong as well.

Hobby Lobby is not a publicly traded corporation however by law all corporations, public and private are considered a "person".

Hence why lots of laws differentiate between a "person" (or a "legal person") and a "natural person". A "person" (or "legal person") could refer to a business of any type, government entity, any other non-human entity or an actual person while "natural person" can only refer to an actual human being.

A company refuses to follow the law and bankrupts itself...and it's Obama's fault.

First of all, if it's really a company it'll find a way not to bankrupt itself. Otherwise, the company deserves to go out of business. Free market, and all that such and such.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "Corporations" exist because of government allowances. If the government decides to change the nature of those allowances; well that just sucks. Hopefully the day of true Libertarianism will arise and we can all agree that individuals are the most important bits of society and government - and all the fucking instutions will be put in their proper secondary/tertiary/no-wherey places.

I won't hold my breath, people are all too willing to lash themselves to floundering ships.

Seriously. The more I read about this shit and the more I have to deal with it (being in the military I had Universal Healthcare up until now) the more I find our system to be COMPLETELY FUCKED.

It's to the point where while I don't think the Canadian or British models are the best (I'd prefer the German or Swiss models) I honestly don't think they could be worse than what we have now.

The principles that a woman shouldn't be able to obtain medication for a medical problem on insurance if that medication also can have a contraceptive purpose?

Bingo.

Whether a corporation is publicly-traded or privately-held is completely irrelevant to the debate. They are afforded the same rights.

It's FDR's fault. His freezing wages during WWII led companies to offering benefits other then money in order to attract workers.

One of those benefits: Health Care

We've been screwed ever since.

And we don't need the Canadian or British model. Both suck (especially the British one).

Remove companies from health insurance. Give people the tax incentive to have their own insurance, remove the states from barring a person from getting insurance outside the state, remove the laws that prevent hospitals from being built, and you will see prices come down through competition.

While I usually agree to such a sentiment, it's not true in this case. There are certain areas where competition doesn't work. Health care is one classic example for Instant Cartel.

How so? Garamet has mentioned that health care was affordable back until the insurance companies started putting their mitts into every aspect of care. So there had to have been competition and an incentive not to gouge consumers out of every penny to attract people into coming prior to the 1980's.It stands to reason that it could once again survive by competition if the stranglehold of insurance could get choked out, IMO.

Sorry, that's bullshit. FDR, like his cousin Teddy before him and Truman after, tried to get UHC passed, and the AMA and the Republicans blocked it.

FDR and Eisenhower implemented the current system. The Stabilization Act of 1942 did what you said, but what sealed the deal was Eisenhower making sure that both employer and employee health benefits were tax exempt. That's what exploded the current system.

So by 'fault' if you mean something that both parties contributed to and provide the basic economic foundation for allowing large portions of our society to have insurance, then you are correct.

We could have a system that's efficient and provides everyone basic insurance with the ability to purchase what you desired past that, like Austria, but the health industry has always fought against that. Efficiency isn't their goal, personal profit is.

We have the least efficient system in the first world. Doctors that don't want UHC, and insurance companies that don't want competition are responsible for that.

I honestly don't have any idea. It's just from my observation that certain services just won't compete. Banks are a good example. There's a myriad of them but just try and get better conditions anywhere. Insurance of any kind, same to the cent with just enough differences in coverage so competitive regulatories can pretend there's nothing to see here.

Works the other way 'round too btw. There's a huge demand in care services for the elderly. The competition for workers in this field gets more fierce with every passing month. But... for some reason, they just won't get paid more, no matter where they apply. My company for example will rather create a five million euro ad campaign targetting new recruits in 2013 instead of taking the money and paying those saints more adequately. No idea why but at least it keeps me busy.

When it comes to the economy I'm very libertarian.

I think businesses should be allowed to do what they damn well please.

Aside from the most basic of environmental and workplace safety regulations.

And that they should not get govt. money or government protections.

Iuds are not abortive.

From what I understood it was only the morning after pill that the company had a problem with. Not all birth control.

By the logic of the extreme anti-abortion camp, they are. An IUD prevents an embryo from implanting, and an embryo, to their way of thinking, is no different from a foetus, is no different from a baby.

But its not. When has Obama ever put forward an NHS type proposal? All he has done is take the money of the big insurance companies and handed us all over to them with the legal requirement that we buy or face a penalty.

How could you have missed the part about low income people getting up to the whole cost paid for by the government?

So, they aren't going with Geico?!?

And yet those same insurers will cover the costs of Viagra.

We've been over this before.

Viagra and other drugs for erectile problems are used to treat a medical problem.

Pregnancy on the other hand is NOT a medical problem (aside from a few rare cases). It is a perfectly natural outcome of intercourse.