Some good news in a down economy..........



Hobby Lobby hikes pay rate | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/hobby-lobby-hikes-pay-rate/article/3361623?custom_click=lead_story_title)
Hobby Lobby hikes pay rate
More than 6,900 full-time workers will get raises, company announced
BY RANDY ELLIS
Published: April 15, 2009

Starting immediately, Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. is granting pay raises to all full-time hourly employees who earn up to $13 an hour, company founder David Green said Tuesday.

The company also has established its own $10 minimum wage for all full-time employees.

"Our employees are the backbone of our company, and we believe that giving them the opportunity to share in our success is the right thing to do,” said Green, Hobby Lobby’s chief executive officer.

The raises will apply to employees of Hobby Lobby and its affiliated businesses, including Mardel and Hemispheres, he said. More than 6,900 employees throughout the corporation will receive pay increases, with some receiving nearly $600 more a month.

Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. is a privately held retail chain of more than 400 arts-and-crafts stores in 33 states. The company’s revenue for 2008 was $1.8 billion.

While many retail businesses have struggled with the declining economy, Green said Hobby Lobby has continued to thrive.

"So far, by God’s grace, we’re doing well this year. We have approximately a 5 percent increase in same-store sales so far this year and about a 10 percent overall increase with new stores,” Green said.

The company plans to add 25 Hobby Lobby Stores and five Mardel stores this year, which will require the addition of about 1,000 employees to the company’s 18,000-person nationwide work force, he said.

Hobby Lobby’s new $10 minimum wage is 34.5 percent higher than the federal minimum wage of $6.55 an hour.

Not the first time
"This minimum wage increase is the most exciting initiative I’ve been involved with since I started the company,” Green said. "We believe the success of Hobby Lobby is directly attributable to our outstanding employees and our strong corporate values, which are based on biblical principles, including integrity, service to others and giving back to those in need.”
This is not the first time Hobby Lobby has given employees unexpected pay raises during trying financial times. Last year, when gasoline prices skyrocketed, Hobby Lobby gave workers permanent 25 cent per hour raises to help offset cost-of-living increases.

Yes! Good news indeed. :woowoo:

VERY commendable.

Good for them.

I think I might shop at hobby lobby more often now, if they are treating there employees well, I just wish other companies will look at this as an example. Most retail and sales, and warehouse employees dont get paid enough for what they do

I am not a Hobby Lobby fan, but this deserve recongniton for being a good thing. Good job Mr. Green.

Well, the threats from the recent past to unionize Hobby Lobby, though without success, have done some good.

Well, the threats from the recent past to unionize Hobby Lobby, though without success, have done some good.

Oh really? Got any facts to back your fantasy up?

Some folks may not be in accord with the Green's views on their faith, but that's a family that regularly (and frequently very silently) walks their talk.

Hobby Lobby to Raise Minimum Wage to $13/Hour (http://newsok.com/hobby-lobby-raises-minimum-wage-to-13hour/article/3666871)

great, i will make a point to shop at hobby lobby more often. its just so refreshing to hear about employees being treated well instead of being under the constant threat of decreased wages, outsourced work, and offshoring (all while CEO make millions).

Even though the $13 probably doesn't go out to very many since I'm sure most are part time...$9 ain't too bad for part time work starting pay

Some folks may not be in accord with the Green's views on their faith, but that's a family that regularly (and frequently very silently) walks their talk.

I agree. I wish more professed "Christian" business owners would follow suit. Mr. Green and the gentleman who owns Chick-fil-A both seem to practice what they preach, and I applaud them for doing so.

And its the 4th year in a row they have done this, even during the recession!

Hobby Lobby challenges federal mandate to provide 'morning-after' pills to employees

The owners of Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday claiming that the Health and Human Services “preventive services” mandate violates their rights of religious freedom and free speech.


Read more: Hobby Lobby challenges federal mandate to provide 'morning-after' pills to employees | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/hobby-lobby-challenges-federal-mandate-to-provide-morning-after-pills-to-employees/article/3709107#ixzz26ILGdmSF)

Pete,
To clarify this a little, Obamacare requires employers to provide birth control medications at no cost to the employee. This means no "copay". I don't know Mr. Greens feelings about normal healthcare providing a portion of the cost. When my late wife was going through her problems, no meds were free but all were fairly good due to our excellent insurance and we simply paid a copay. I think the most we ever paid was $30. That's the way I read it in today's Oklahoman.
C. T.

We will no longer be shopping at Hobby Lobby.

We will no longer be shopping at Hobby Lobby.

As is your choice as a consumer.
Irrespective of how this litigation resolves, I imagine my lovely will continue to shop there and at the local Mardells. She's rather fond of the selection in both stores.

Pete,
To clarify this a little, Obamacare requires employers to provide birth control medications at no cost to the employee. This means no "copay". I don't know Mr. Greens feelings about normal healthcare providing a portion of the cost. When my late wife was going through her problems, no meds were free but all were fairly good due to our excellent insurance and we simply paid a copay. I think the most we ever paid was $30. That's the way I read it in today's Oklahoman.
C. T.

According to the article, its the "emergency contraceptive" methods that they are opposed to being forced to provide coverage for.

Duncan said the Greens are not opposed to all forms of birth control, only emergency contraception such as the “morning-after” or “week-after” pills. The lawsuit refers to contraception methods such as Plan B, Ella and some intrauterine devices as “abortion-causing drugs and devices.”

"Emergency contraceptive" is a PC term for abortion-inducing. A better term would be "panic abortion".

I haven't been in a Hobby Lobby or a Mardel's more than half a dozen times in the last ten years but in order to offset the negative effects of The Big Boycott (see above) I'm going by a Mardel's this afternoon to pick up a 4-DVD set of "Thou Shalt Laugh" . . . I might stop by a Hobby Lobby to pick up some 8-to-an-inch graph paper and then swing by Chik-fil-A for a sandwich.

I wonder if Mardel's might have a book with a commentary on the Constitution that shows where the Federal Government has the right to cram birth-control down a business owner's throat . . . Or demand that they open on Sundays.

I shudder to think of the effects of The Big Boycott on the pay scale of the innocent employees who are the real victims here. Say! Do you think there is a market here for condoms with a "religious" theme?

As is your choice as a consumer.
Irrespective of how this litigation resolves, I imagine my lovely will continue to shop there and at the local Mardells. She's rather fond of the selection in both stores.

+1. . .and I'll probably go twice as often!

According to the article, its the "emergency contraceptive" methods that they are opposed to being forced to provide coverage for.


"Emergency contraceptive" is a PC term for abortion-inducing. A better term would be "panic abortion".

Taking the morning after pill is not even close to the same as an abortion.

I wonder if Mardel's might have a book with a commentary on the Constitution that shows where the Federal Government has the right to cram birth-control down a business owner's throat . . . Or demand that they open on Sundays.


Its not the owners throats, its the employees that would like to have it. Just like they would like to have antibiotics or painkillers after a sickness. No different than the government "forcing down the owners throat" anti-discrimination policies or healthy workplace standards.

Its not the owners throats, its the employees that would like to have it. Just like they would like to have antibiotics or painkillers after a sickness. No different than the government "forcing down the owners throat" anti-discrimination policies or healthy workplace standards.

There's a LOT that I don't know about the PPACA and Hobby Lobby's contention about it, but it seems that Hobby Lobby only has a problem with being required to provide coverage that includes what they view as abortions (aborted pregnancies -- if that's not the morning after pill, what is?). It looks like Hobby Lobby only is fighting that portion (or at least that's all the paper is reporting about it). Hobby Lobby doesn't appear to have a problem providing health care, as is evidenced by their establishment of a clinic on site at their headquarters in 2010. I'm sure that's above and beyond the standard. And no, it's not required to use it, if you feel they combine too much religion with medicine. QuickTrip does this in Tulsa and is widely hailed in the media as a progressive company for it. Again, if I read the article right, it's the completely free service void of copay that the company must absorb that Hobby Lobby is opposed to.

There's a big difference between an employer not paying for something for an employee, and an employer prohibiting the use of something by an employee. They're doing the former, not the latter, and on grounds of religious principal.

What ever happened to the free market, where an employer and employee reach an agreement on employment terms without government intrusion? Yes, certain labor and safety laws go far in protecting employees, but laws telling employers that they have to provide contraception for employees who aren't engaged in sex as part of their employment? If a woman was a porn star and ran the risk of pregnancy, then I can see her wanting to ask her employer to pay for contraception. Otherwise - no.

Taking the morning after pill is not even close to the same as an abortion.

Please elaborate the difference. I'm not up on the technical details of how each of these methods work, but it seem to me that if its done after conception, that would constitute abortion.

I can see Mr. Green’s position. He is a Christian that runs a company based on his beliefs. His employees have a right to go get the morning after pill but he should not be forced to pay for it. I am sure that it is not that expensive anyway. It looks to me as though he has been very good to his employees. I have never shopped in a Hobby Lobby but I certainly have to admire his standing up for his beliefs.

Please elaborate the difference. I'm not up on the technical details of how each of these methods work, but it seem to me that if its done after conception, that would constitute abortion.

It prevents or delays ovulation thus interfering with fertilization. There is quite a difference between this and an abortion. Conception isnt when you roll over and light up your cigerette

+1. . .and I'll probably go twice as often!

So you'll go to Hobby Lobby twice as often because of this? Is that what I'm understanding?

I might agree or differ with a company owner's beliefs, but I'm not going to go out of my way to patronize them more than normal because of something like this. Just like the whole Chick-Fil-A thing. I don't agree with their owner's stance, but I'll still stop by there whenever I'm having an urge for their food. The people that change their own behavior and actions because of something like this are the very definition of "sheep" that the respective power players want to keep under their control.

I can see Mr. Green’s position. He is a Christian that runs a company based on his beliefs. His employees have a right to go get the morning after pill but he should not be forced to pay for it. I am sure that it is not that expensive anyway. It looks to me as though he has been very good to his employees. I have never shopped in a Hobby Lobby but I certainly have to admire his standing up for his beliefs.

Except when those beliefs are wrong.

He, like a lot of other conservatives, believe the morning-after pill is just an "abortion in a bottle." The morning after pill is just emergency contraception, i,e. a much more powerful birth control pill. It will do nothing to you if you are already pregnant. It is not the same as RU486, which does terminate pregnancies but is highly regulated. You can't even get it at a pharmacy.

If Hobby Lobby is against paying for birth control than it should just come out and say it. Be consistent. They have a right to their views just like everyone else. The fact that they are not just shows that they are just picking a political fight.

Mr. Green and the executives of Hobby Lobby should seriously themselves this: have they succeeded in their goals if an employee of theirs couldn't get proper access to birth control and had to go get a medical abortion?

Except when those beliefs are wrong.

He, like a lot of other conservatives, believe the morning-after pill is just an "abortion in a bottle." The morning after pill is just emergency contraception, i,e. a much more powerful birth control pill. It will do nothing to you if you are already pregnant. It is not the same as RU486, which does terminate pregnancies but is highly regulated. You can't even get it at a pharmacy.

Learned something new today. I can go home, now, right?

It prevents or delays ovulation thus interfering with fertilization. There is quite a difference between this and an abortion. Conception isnt when you roll over and light up your cigerette

But holding a cigarette between one's knees might be an effective form of contraception . . .
(just don't light it . . . or allow any peanuts in the room . . . in the name of health safety, etc.)

Late Breaking News: The parking lot of the Mardel's on the NW Expressway only had about ten cars in it. Either The Boycott or The Rain seems to be working. Or not.---Radical Moderate from one of the fronts in the culture war battlefield. Back to you Metro . . .

Except when those beliefs are wrong.

He, like a lot of other conservatives, believe the morning-after pill is just an "abortion in a bottle." The morning after pill is just emergency contraception, i,e. a much more powerful birth control pill. It will do nothing to you if you are already pregnant. It is not the same as RU486, which does terminate pregnancies but is highly regulated. You can't even get it at a pharmacy.

If Hobby Lobby is against paying for birth control than it should just come out and say it. Be consistent. They have a right to their views just like everyone else. The fact that they are not just shows that they are just picking a political fight.

Mr. Green and the executives of Hobby Lobby should seriously themselves this: have they succeeded in their goals if an employee of theirs couldn't get proper access to birth control and had to go get a medical abortion?

Who is to say if he is right or wrong it is his company. I gave to admire him for standing behind his beliefs though.

Who is to say if he is right or wrong it is his company. I gave to admire him for standing behind his beliefs though.

Yes . . . But just for fun, let's take the "Business Owner's Rights" discussion to The Absurd Comparison with . . . oh . . . I dunno . . . a Woolworth's Lunch Counter of The Fabulous '50s . . . for example. "I have a civil right to sit at this counter and have a grilled cheese sandwich, some fries and a Coke. And equal access to Morning After Abortion Pills."

Of course, that flies in the face of the fact that Mr. (and Mrs.) Woolworth didn't build that business.
Fearless Government Leader did.
Now if He could just do something about those pesky flies on the fries.
And those oversized Cokes.

Yes . . . But just for fun, let's take the "Business Owner's Rights" discussion to The Absurd Comparison with . . . oh . . . I dunno . . . a Woolworth's Lunch Counter of The Fabulous '50s . . . for example. "I have a civil right to sit at this counter and have a grilled cheese sandwich, some fries and a Coke. And equal access to Morning After Abortion Pills."

Of course, that flies in the face of the fact that Mr. (and Mrs.) Woolworth didn't build that business.
Fearless Government Leader did.
Now if He could just do something about those pesky flies on the fries.
And those oversized Cokes.

That is a not a very good comparison. I don’t see how religious freedom has anything to do with racism. It is the same for the Catholic universities. If they don’t believe in paying for birth control then they should not have to. For that same reason you do’t have to shop at Hobby lobby either.

Did you miss the "just for fun" part? Or intentionally ignore it?
If I were a nun I'd smack you on your knuckles with a ruler.
Then send you to the Principles Office. (Or at least the Vice Principle. =)

But I'm not a nun and I respect your opinion regarding the rights of business owners and not waffling on beliefs as expressed in your text message.

Rather than "right and wrong" . . . or "right and left" . . . perhaps this discussion is more along the lines of Values as compared to Virtues; or Ethics (act) Morals?

That is a not a very good comparison. I don’t see how religious freedom has anything to do with racism. It is the same for the Catholic universities. If they don’t believe in paying for birth control then they should not have to. For that same reason you do’t have to shop at Hobby lobby either.

The bigger flaw with the Roman Catholic church is that they just flat out zap all birth control without taking into the understanding that it can be used for things other than pregnancy prevention.

Point well taken . . .
Yet, isn't the biggest flaw with the Roman Catholic chuch that it is impossible to be Roman and Catholic (universal/all encompassing) at the same time?

Point well taken . . .
Yet, isn't the biggest flaw with the Roman Catholic chuch that it is impossible to be Roman and Catholic (universal/all encompassing) at the same time?

You know. You probably contribute to my brain hurting more than any other poster. Advil thanks you! LOL :-)

Don't expect your employer to pay for it . . . =)

The bigger flaw with the Roman Catholic church is that they just flat out zap all birth control without taking into the understanding that it can be used for things other than pregnancy prevention.
Actually, this is not accurate - but it often repeated.

Actually, this is not accurate - but it often repeated.

By all means point me in the direction to correct my thinking on it.

As to avoid affecting the sensitivities of the fairer sex I'll answer that the Catholic churches approved method of birth control is coitus interruptus.

By all means point me in the direction to correct my thinking on it.

I don't know if you're catholic but I've taken catholic teaching (didn't convert) and this particular subject was addressed because a lot of people had heard that. It simply isn't true. Moreover, I have many practicing Catholic friends and relatives who have been prescribed birth control pills to control bleeding and/or problems with menstruation with the full knowledge and approval of their priests. That medication primarily used for birth control can't be prescribed or used for other medical conditions is just a myth that keeps being repeated. All you need to do is google it.

We're not very religious, but purchase office supplies (copier paper and such) at Mardel's in support of their convictions.

Nobody calls us hatemongers, do they?

I don't know if you're catholic but I've taken catholic teaching (didn't convert) and this particular subject was addressed because a lot of people had heard that. It simply isn't true. Moreover, I have many practicing Catholic friends and relatives who have been prescribed birth control pills to control bleeding and/or problems with menstruation with the full knowledge and approval of their priests. That medication primarily used for birth control can't be prescribed or used for other medical conditions is just a myth that keeps being repeated. All you need to do is google it.

I am. I to have many family and friends that have had to get prescribed birth control for reasons other than what its name implies. However, I don't really know any that ran to their priest for approval...I guess it depends how they feel morally on it. The part I was getting to was if these Catholic organizations aren't going to pay for birth control, are they blocking paying for it completely or will they have exceptions internally if the doctor prescribes it for something other than birth control.

I have no problem with company (privately owned) ownership that is standing up for principles and government directives it feels directly violates the religious beliefs of the owners. People continue to try to equate these beliefs to a political position but it simply isn't. Those who feel Hobby Lobby ownership is taking some sort of political statement is also wrong. They are simply making the statement that the government requirements in question are illegal and unconstitutional at a time the government requirements are about to go into effect. The Greens are expressing a deeply held position and belief that prevention (and elimination) of life is a moral violation and an offense to their humanity. For government to force a business to violate these principles is not what our country is about. If the people are offended by the position of the company, no one forces the people to buy at that store. There are multiple alternatives. By the same token, to take up the supposed "cause" of women who work there that Hobby Lobby's stance on birth control somehow deprives them of basic health services is also false because birth control isn't expensive and certainly can be free. I doubt there are many women working at Hobby Lobby or Mardel's who don't know what the company ownership is about and who don't have the freedom to find another job if it is a problem for them. Jobs at those retail establishments aren't unique or require special skills. No different than those who might find the actions of Chase Bank or Morgan Stanley offensive - do your business elsewhere.

We will no longer be shopping at Hobby Lobby.

That is surely easy for the typical guy to boycott, considering all the cheap made in China home decor and plastic stuff they sell.

If employees don't agree with the views of the owners then they are free to seek employment elsewhere.

They could be like many small/medium sized businesses and drop health care coverage all together because paying the tax when it goes into effect would more than likely be cheaper.

+1. . .and I'll probably go twice as often!

Do you also go twice as often now to Chick-fil-a?

If employees don't agree with the views of the owners then they are free to seek employment elsewhere.

You're leaving yourself wide open with such a broad statement.

I am. I to have many family and friends that have had to get prescribed birth control for reasons other than what its name implies. However, I don't really know any that ran to their priest for approval...I guess it depends how they feel morally on it. The part I was getting to was if these Catholic organizations aren't going to pay for birth control, are they blocking paying for it completely or will they have exceptions internally if the doctor prescribes it for something other than birth control.

I wouldn't think you'd need an exception - you don't need one, now. The church is far more offended at being forced to pay for contraceptives, per se, than they are for drugs/procedures that can merely be used as contraceptives if you wish As a Catholic, you know that intent is a big deal with the faith. There are some church doctrines about whether they need to abstain while a birth control mechanism is use but that is a completely separate question from using drugs/procedures that also impact contraception. And the fact that they require abstaining while using certain medications just proves the point that they allow medication and procedures for non contraception reasons.

Things like D&C's are common for other uses other than abortions - same with birth control pills to correct irregular periods - and there isn't a problem with paying for these if that is what they are supposed to be used for. They don't spend their time and energy pouring over common medical procedures or medications prescribed to treat common conditions (and the purpose/reason is included in the billing) looking for sin. Are there doctors that prescribe such things for birth control and claim it is for irregular periods? Of course. But all that means is that church law allows for such things, already, and the parishioner is doing the time honored run around. I imagine that if there was a widespread problem of a Catholics needing to go to their priest to get permission for a D&C or birth control pills we'd have all heard horror stories from our catholic friends who get insurance through the church - but we haven't.

It is up to the employee to make decisions about their healthcare, not the employer. Employer doesn't get to decide how employee will spend their wagers either.

I hope when HL loses they get to pay back the taxpayers' legal fees on this issue.

It is up to the employee to make decisions about their healthcare, not the employer. Employer doesn't get to decide how employee will spend their wagers either.

So should the employee get to do elective surgery on the employers dime, as well? If the employee wants cosmetic surgery, is that their option at the employer's expense, as well?

So should the employee get to do elective surgery on the employers dime, as well? If the employee wants cosmetic surgery, is that their option at the employer's expense, as well?

That covers a lot of ground so I have to say, it depends. "Elective" could mean a choice of types of medical care than the no medical care vs medical care or expensive medical care vs cheap medical care your post seems to allude to. "Elective" surgery might end a lifetime of drugs, PT, trips to the doctor etc.

Same goes for birth control. Anecdotally, I have a neighbor who had a brain tumor that grew exponentially when her hormone profile changed as the result of her pregnancy. It almost killed her, has resulted in several surgeries and has drastically altered her life. (As well as all the lives surrounding her.) The employer should not be involved in making those types of personal medical decisions for their employees.

That covers a lot of ground so I have to say, it depends. "Elective" could mean a choice of types of medical care than the no medical care vs medical care or expensive medical care vs cheap medical care your post seems to allude to.

If my post alluded to any of those dichotomies, it was poorly worded. I thought that "elective surgery" was succinct. I can't help but think that birth control should be an option right up there with OTC drugs and liposuction. You want it? Go get it. You're free to do so. It would be wrong for an employer to control that decision. It would be foolish to expect an insurance company to pay for it and presumptious to expect an employer to fund ANY of it.

QUOTE=Bunty;574613]Do you also go twice as often now to Chick-fil-a?[/QUOTE]
:) nah. . .that was just a flippant reply. . .very rarely do Chick-fiil-a, but it has nothing to do with boycotting their stance. I do frequent HB for some things and do appreciate that they (corporate) are local. Peace??

If my post alluded to any of those dichotomies, it was poorly worded. I thought that "elective surgery" was succinct. I can't help but think that birth control should be an option right up there with OTC drugs and liposuction. You want it? Go get it. You're free to do so. It would be wrong for an employer to control that decision. It would be foolish to expect an insurance company to pay for it and presumptious to expect an employer to fund ANY of it.

Again, you seem to argue the end result of the doctor supervised treatment is more expensive than not getting treatment. See my previous post.

But you're against the AHA and other insurance laws all the way and believe the employer should be able to pick and chose whatever they want to provide to their employees, ignoring the supreme court decision too, right?

If that's not the case, do you think all well care coverage should be excluded in addition to reproductive issue care, like a tetanus shot or other immunizations, cancer screenings, heart checks, blood screens etc. I'm sure somewhere, some employer objects to these on religious grounds if it is only those who worship the Almighty Dollar.


OTC drugs and liposuction

false equivalence

Again, you seem to argue the end result of the doctor supervised treatment is more expensive than not getting treatment. See my previous post.

But you're against the AHA and other insurance laws all the way and believe the employer should be able to pick and chose whatever they want to provide to their employees, ignoring the supreme court decision too, right?

If that's not the case, do you think all well care coverage should be excluded in addition to reproductive issue care, like a tetanus shot or other immunizations, cancer screenings, heart checks, blood screens etc. I'm sure somewhere, some employer objects to these on religious grounds if it is only those who worship the Almighty Dollar.



false equivalence

Perhaps I've too simple a mind for your far superior intellect. I've re-read your previous post and mine and don't see where I say that the end result of doctor supervised treatment is more expensive than not getting treatment? Please illuminate me. Is it your reference to a neighbor with a brain tumor? Clearly that's a situation where some hormone treatment solved a problem. I don't believe that birth control medicines should be made free to the public because in this situation it solved a complex medical problem. If that was your argument, then should headache medicine be made free to the public because heart patients can use it to thin blood and prevent a heart attack?

I'm not totally against the PPAHA. You've made that assumption without good basis. I think that with a few modifications, the PPAHA will do wonders for the American public -- but lets be honest here. SOMEBODY has to pick and choose what the standard of health care is to be provided to employees and the PPAHA does that -- and not all that perfectly, in my opinion. I don't think that we have to provide Sandra Fluke with free birth control. Is that what you're stating when you ask if I "think all well care coverage should be excluded in addition to reproductive issue care"? Is birth control now "well care"? To extend that line of thinking, birth control to prevent a pregnancy is like a tetanus shot to prevent a disease.

Regarding your parting shot about equating birth control, OTC drugs and liposuction, I stand by my earlier statement. I wish birth control pills were something you COULD get over the counter. I think that a whole lot more people would take advantage of that option to prevent a pregnancy. And I don't see how there's a false equivalency between OTC drugs and liposuction -- especially in the original context. Both are things MY health insurance won't pay for.

Perhaps I've too simple a mind for your far superior intellect. I've re-read your previous post and mine and don't see where I say that the end result of doctor supervised treatment is more expensive than not getting treatment? Please illuminate me. Is it your reference to a neighbor with a brain tumor? Clearly that's a situation where some hormone treatment solved a problem. I don't believe that birth control medicines should be made free to the public because in this situation it solved a complex medical problem. If that was your argument, then should headache medicine be made free to the public because heart patients can use it to thin blood and prevent a heart attack?

My neighbor was not getting hormone treatment from a doctor. When a woman is pregnant, hormone production changes in her body. These changes in her resulted in explosive growth of the tumor in her head. In context, this was a response to your question about employees making 'elective' decisions that the employer may have to pay for, with my point being there is not always a cut and dried outcome to what one might 'elect,' be it the employer or the employee making those elections. In the case of my neighbor, the outcome of her 'electing' pregnancy over birth control included massive medical bills, loss of a husband, near death, and loss of some of her physical and mental capacity. A healthy part of the medical bills were footed by her employer furnished insurance.

The other instances of well care I mentioned are elective too.

The horse is out of the gate and we have laws for minimum standards of healthcare for citizens. The employer should not be the person deciding what these standards are and especially not when the decisions are based on the religious views of the company.