Hobby Lobby

Question:
What company controls what their health insurance provider does or does not do?
When a company goes searching for a health insurance provider for its employees how many get into the specifics concerning what drugs are covered?
Assuming a company does research that, what does it do if no insurance company in their state meets their standards?

I am trying to remember back to when I got my vasectomy. I know I paid a good bit of the cost but do not remember if I paid for it all. I think I did, but I wouldn't bet on it. I do know we have had several that covered standard birth control pills and the IUD for my bride. None gave me condoms, but they are easy enough to get.

 

There is a vast difference between preventing a conception and an abortion. One is murder, the other is a medical decision. Catholics interpret Scripture to condemn both. I know of no Baptist doctrine that does such.

 

Yes, there is a difference. I am not disputing that at all. I am not in favor of Obamacare at all. I believe it will be our final undoing as a nation. I agree that it needs to be fought at every turn.

I was just asking the questions based on the complaint in the email, and similar complaints I have read about. I believe the lawsuit by Liberty University is along the same lines.

 

All businesses should band together with Hobby Lobby to fight this in court, and set up a system where those who believe in a system of free enterprise may donate to help with their case.

 

Don't know if this has changed, as it's been about 15 years since I was involved with my employer's health insurance program.

Prior to the annual renewal of the existing group policy, we would put the contract out for bids. With each bid request there was a set of guidelines/stipulations as to what would and would not be covered. For example, we did not cover vision care, except when a medical necessity warranted, such as an infection or injury. Nor cosmetic surgery, except in cases of illness or injury. Nor contraception expenses and abortions.

We established what we'd consider in terms of deductables, out-of-pocket limits, % of co-pay after the deductable, and employer/employee distribution of expense. (At the time, the company paid 100% of the employee costs. Employees paid for their dependent's coverage, if they elected same.)

The reasons were two-fold. The company provided good insurance coverage but could not afford "Cadallic" plans. Second, the owner's religious convictions came into play, as well. He wouldn't have been a party to anything that implied he supported abortions, even if that expense had not raised the premium cost by a single penny.

When the proposals came in, they were very thoroughly checked for both inclusions and omissions in coverage. The task is actually easier than one would imagine, who hasn't done this type of work. A spreadsheet (now a database) would be setup to compare proposals. Basically a fill in the blanks on everything that was to be identified and compared.

With today's on-line databases, it would be even easier to check out more of what's included within a insurance plan proposal. Especially when the reviewer of those proposals know exactly what to look for in the "fine print" in terms of compliance with the company's expectations of coverage or non-coverage.

 

Ditto that! :thumbsup:

 

It is great to see your post. I may be that we the people can stop this where Congress and the Supreme Court would not.

 

Thank you for the explanation.