Hobby Lobby Invests In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection

Lol real jobs? I guess you dont understand the concept of "letting you think about it" as opposed to " I will respond when I'm ready"

Go ahead and continue searching the interwebs for an answer because no matter what you find you already showed your hand with your initial response. You really have no clue how the process works. Fit that square peg into a round hole. Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

If I were you, I wouldn't bait the Irish Bulldog - he will steamroll your amateur BS.
(which he just did)

Everything I've ever said in this forum has been spot on. Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

Well, gee, I'm impressed!!!

So here is the answer to your multifaceted stupidities.

First, don't use words if you don't know what they mean.

"Fiduciary duty" or "fiduciary responsibility" has a particular meaning and, contrary to what you ignorantly believe, it PREVENTS Hobby Lobby from hand picking stocks, unless they are begging to get sued for breach of fiduciary duty.

A ten second search of the Internet would have found this Department of Labor webpage:

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications...nsibility.html

It is the FIRST link that comes up if you Google "employer 401k fiduciary responsibility".

The decision to have a 401k plan is a business decision. However, once that decision is made, the employer has a fiduciary duty to the EMPLOYEE and NOT to the company to take care of the 401k plan. These fiduciary responsibilities are almost entirely financial in nature.

Here is the list of fiduciary responsibilities from the Department of Labor. I have emphasized keywords for your simple minded benefit:
------------------------------------------------------------
Fiduciaries have important responsibilities and are subject to standards of conduct because they act on behalf of participants in a retirement plan and their beneficiaries. These responsibilities include:

• Acting solely in the interest of plan participants and their beneficiaries and with the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them;
• Carrying out their duties prudently;
• Following the plan documents (unless inconsistent with ERISA);
• Diversifying plan investments; and
• Paying only reasonable plan expenses.

The duty to act prudently is one of a fiduciary’s central responsibilities under ERISA. It requires expertise in a variety of areas, such as investments. Lacking that expertise, a fiduciary will want to hire someone with that professional knowledge to carry out the investment and other functions. Prudence focuses on the process for making fiduciary decisions. Therefore, it is wise to document decisions and the basis for those decisions. For instance, in hiring any plan service provider, a fiduciary may want to survey a number of potential providers, asking for the same information and providing the same requirements. By doing so, a fiduciary can document the process and make a meaningful comparison and selection.
Following the terms of the plan document is also an important responsibility. The document serves as the foundation for plan operations. Employers will want to be familiar with their plan document, especially when it is drawn up by a third-party service provider, and periodically review the document to make sure it remains current. For example, if a plan official named in the document changes, the plan document must be updated to reflect that change.
Diversification – another key fiduciary duty – helps to minimize the risk of large investment losses to the plan. Fiduciaries should consider each plan investment as part of the plan’s entire portfolio. Once again, fiduciaries will want to document their evaluation and investment decisions.
-------------------------------------------------

Do you see ANYTHING in that list that would allow an employer to hand pick stocks for exclusion to suit the EMPLOYER's religious beliefs?

The employer has to act solely for the financial benefit of the employee. The company cannot act for its own benefit.

Pharma stocks make big money. So do oil companies.

If a company decides to prevent an employee from investing the employee's money in pharma stock because of the employer's religious beliefs, the company is in BREACH of its fiduciary duty. The company is detrimentally preventing an employee from earning the high returns that pharma stocks yield.

If a company decides to prevent an employee from investing the employee's money in oil stock because of the employer's environmental beliefs, the company is in BREACH of its fiduciary duty. The company is detrimentally preventing an employee from earning the high returns that oil stocks yield.

A company cannot even prevent an employee from investing 401k money in a direct COMPETITOR. Apple cannot prevent employees from investing in Samsung. How do you like them apples?

Harvard University has a huge endowment. If students pressure Harvard to divest its endowment from Israeli companies in sympathy with the Palestinian cause, Harvard can do that if it chooses because the endowment belongs to Harvard.

Bur Harvard cannot prevent its employees from investing 401k funds in Israeli companies because the 401k money belongs to the employees and Harvard would be breaching its fiduciary responsibilities.

EVEN IF they did so at a quarterly meeting, moron.

Now, do you see how that works? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Wow just wow. I don't even know where to begin. First things first. You are clearly an uneducated moron. You spent a whole week researching that only to NOT understand that all you just did was confirm all of my comments in red. Do you really not understand all that drivel you just posted which I skimmed through in basically one minute.

Listen instead of trying to educate yourself and legitimately countering my points in red you spent dam near a week stewing over the term fiduciary responsibilities. This is exactly what Fox news viewers do. You posted a bunch of garbage from online that talked about the word fiduciary but did nothing to address my comments in red.

After saying which amounts to absolutely nothing in the context of my comments in red. ( in red so you don't lose focus of the topic at hand and pivot like you're attempting) you then start with posting pictures and further silly attempts at insults. Haha. It's ok ExNYer I think we both know along with any real educated person that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. It's a common strategy of those who are uneducated( just like Rush Limbaugh )scream as loud as you can hoping to cover for your clear lack of understanding.

Address my comments in red in a logical clear manner without a long ass copy pasta from the Internet. Show me you're intelligent or smart enough to do that without turning the discussion into a side show based off the word "fiduciary" and maybe we can continue on. I don't like dealing with people who fake their knowledge. Sorry ;-)

And lol who said anything about HL hand picking. You clearly have ZERO comprehension skills. I swear why do I even bother with uneducated tea party morons. Lol

If I were you, I wouldn't bait the Irish Bulldog - he will steamroll your amateur BS.
(which he just did) Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

That's about right. He has the mental capacity of a dog and you're still a dead beat. Lol

Wow just wow. I don't even know where to begin. First things first. You are clearly an uneducated moron. You spent a whole week researching that only to NOT understand that all you just did was confirm all of my comments in red. Do you really not understand all that drivel you just posted which I skimmed through in basically one minute.

Listen instead of trying to educate yourself and legitimately countering my points in red you spent dam near a week stewing over the term fiduciary responsibilities. This is exactly what Fox news viewers do. You posted a bunch of garbage from online that talked about the word fiduciary but did nothing to address my comments in red.

After saying which amounts to absolutely nothing in the context of my comments in red. ( in red so you don't lose focus of the topic at hand and pivot like you're attempting) you then start with posting pictures and further silly attempts at insults. Haha. It's ok ExNYer I think we both know along with any real educated person that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. It's a common strategy of those who are uneducated( just like Rush Limbaugh )scream as loud as you can hoping to cover for your clear lack of understanding.

Address my comments in red in a logical clear manner without a long ass copy pasta from the Internet. Show me you're intelligent or smart enough to do that without turning the discussion into a side show based off the word "fiduciary" and maybe we can continue on. I don't like dealing with people who fake their knowledge. Sorry ;-) Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

I don't watch Fox News, asshole, but you clearly do.

And your idiotic comments in red do not need to be addressed on a line-by-line basis. They all make the SAME mistake.

Hobby Lobby CANNOT instruct its plan managers to take pharma stocks OUT of their portfolios to prevent employees from investing in them because that is a breach of its fiduciary responsibility. It is removing those investment options to suit its OWN needs and not the needs of it employees.

You appear to be unable to grasp that simple point. Why?

Explain how HL could tell an 401k plan administrator to take Magellan out of the plan because Magellan invests in Pfizer without breaching its fiduciary responsibility to act SOLELY for the financial benefit of the employees.

You can't.

And you were the one who brought up fiduciary responsibility NOT me. And you got it wrong. You got hanged with your own rope, which uneducated people often do.

Also, I posted my reply after 4 days. How do you get a WEEK out of that, moron? Once again, this goes back to your education level or lack thereof.

And finally, quite trying to change the subject. Your idiotic musings about HL secretly investing its own money is OFF TOPIC with regard to the employees 401k funds. It is also unsubstantiated. Got a link?

I don't watch Fox News, asshole, but you clearly do.

And your idiotic comments in red do not need to be addressed on a line-by-line basis. They all make the SAME mistake.

Hobby Lobby CANNOT instruct its plan managers to take pharma stocks OUT of their portfolios to prevent employees from investing in them because that is a breach of its fiduciary responsibility. It is removing those investment options to suit its OWN needs and not the needs of it employees.

You appear to be unable to grasp that simple point. Why?

Explain how HL could tell an 401k plan administrator to take Magellan out of the plan because Magellan invests in Pfizer without breaching its fiduciary responsibility to act SOLELY for the financial benefit of the employees.

You can't.

And you were the one who brought up fiduciary responsibility NOT me. And you got it wrong. You got hanged with your own rope, which uneducated people often do.

Also, I posted my reply after 4 days. How do you get a WEEK out of that, moron? Once again, this goes back to your education level or lack thereof.

And finally, quite trying to change the subject. Your idiotic musings about HL secretly investing its own money is OFF TOPIC with regard to the employees 401k funds. It is also unsubstantiated. Got a link? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Lol. Unable to grasp a point that is NOT true. Hahahahaha will someone anyone save this moron ExNYer from himself please. This kid really is clueless hahaha. Asking me questions in a forthright manner because he actually thinks he's right. I want yall tea party people to book mark this thread and then go ask a subject matter expert. This is just sad.

Exnyer. Do you know who and what a 401k plan sponsor is?
No? It is an employer who offers the 401k plan to its employees. In a real clear manner let me explain this yet again.
The plan sponsor (employer) is responsible for choosing the plan, the plan administrator / manager, AND for deciding which investments will be offered through or removed from the plan. In most cases if a fund option is removed it's replaced with a suitable well performing option.

I'm got nothing wrong and I'm 110% correct. This cannot possibly be correct that of all the tea party folks and Republicans on this site they would allow you to continue to grossly misspeak. Surely not all of you are that dumb. I just can't believe that no one has stepped up to explain to you that you are WRONG. Lol

HL can remove whatever investment fund out of the plan as they wish. What typically prevents most employer's from doing so is 1. Money and 2. Getting a bad reputation as poor investors.

Dude stop really. Go ask an expert how wrong you are. I feel embarrassed for you because you're so certain that you're right.

Exnyer. Do you know who and what a 401k plan sponsor is?
No? It is an employer who offers the 401k plan to its employees. In a real clear manner let me explain this yet again.
The plan sponsor (employer) is responsible for choosing the plan, the plan administrator / manager, AND for deciding which investments will be offered through or removed from the plan. In most cases if a fund option is removed it's replaced with a suitable well performing option. Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

Douchbag, who and what a plan sponsor is is a separate issue from fiduciary responsibility.

FYI, I am an owner of a business and have set up the 401K plan for our company. So, I KNOW what i am talking about.

An employer (i.e., plan sponsor) nearly always hires a third party administrator (TPA) to operate the 401K plan and manage the portfolio. Failure to hire a competent TPS leaves the employer open to a lawsuit if anything goes wrong. I don't know of any company (especially small and midsized) that tries to manage the 401K portfolio itself. The liability is too great.

However, whether the employer hires a TPA or tries to do it itself, the employer cannot exclude stocks for its OWN benefit, even if, as you try to say, it substitutes equally good stocks.

First off, I don't know how you can determine another stock is equally good, especially over the long-run.

Pharma stocks have historically done well and, as our population ages, will continue to do well for years to come. How are you going to find a equal substitute for that?

If an employee wants to invest 30% of her 401k fund in pharma stocks because she expects Pfizer, Merck, and all the rest will do well over the next 20 years, but the employer has excluded pharma stocks because of the employer's religious beliefs, the employer BREACHES ITS FIDUCIARY DUTY.

Why?

Because the employer is acting for its own (religious-based) benefit, rather than operating EXCLUSIVELY for the benefit of the employee.

And that is why NOBODY does what you are saying HL should have done.

HL employees can invest their 401k money in pharma stock because HL does not dare breach it fiduciary responsibility by excluding such stock from the plan.

You are so desperate to prove that HL is hypocritical for refusing to use its own money to provide abortion pills as part of the health care plan while "allowing" employees to use their own money to invest in pharma stocks that you completely ignore the reason way HL cannot legally do that.

Now, if you reply, post some FACTUAL links that indicate that HL could have excluded pharma stocks without breaching its fiduciary responsibility.

Douchbag, who and what a plan sponsor is is a separate issue from fiduciary responsibility.

Not really but let's not cloud the issue. While I'm glad I apparently introduced you to a new word let's not Pivot please stay focused.

FYI, I am an owner of a business and have set up the 401K plan for our company. So, I KNOW what i am talking about. Haha and Ha! of what? A Taco Stand. Haha! that's what all tea party loons say when getting taught a lesson on anything. I'm used to hearing it.

An employer (i.e., plan sponsor) nearly always hires a third party administrator (TPA) to operate the 401K plan and manage the portfolio. Lol - so why do you have a habit of repeating what I tell you. It is a pretty odd yet obvious tactic. Failure to hire a competent TPS leaves the employer open to a lawsuit if anything goes wrong. Again you keep repeating every fucking thing I've stated in this entire thread and trying to pass it off as something you're teaching me. In all honesty I find this amusing and a compliment. I don't know of any company (especially small and midsized) that tries to manage the 401K portfolio itself. The liability is too great. I'm over here rolling as in LMAO at the shit you're typing while claiming to own a business. Lol but ok why would they manage it themselves when they typically hire a manager to advise and direct. I said nothing about them managing it themselves but rather they do it in tandem. There's a new word for you to run with it's called tandem.

However, whether the employer hires a TPA or tries to do it itself, the employer cannot exclude stocks for its OWN benefit, even if, as you try to say, it substitutes equally good stocks. - Who said anything about excluding stocks for their own financial benefit you are rambling all over the place trying to cloud the issue to make your argument stick. You really are dumb and I don't throw that around at people lightly. You're searching the net doing all this research and confusing the fuck out of yourself. What I said was they can remove a stock (reasoning based on performance) and add another one which is typically what's done. They can do that with or without the consent of the Plan Admin. Typically it's done with the Plan Admin input. To be clear I also made the comment that with the apparent recent decision of the SCOTUS they could also elect to remove a stock on the basis of religious conviction and likely win if sued by their employees. (and no it would not be fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to the plan they administer for their staff) Is that clear enough for you Mr. Business Owner. - lol

First off, I don't know how you can determine another stock is equally good, especially over the long-run. This sentence exposed you tbh. Ha ha. now I know you don't run a business or have the remotest clue as to what you talking about. How can you determine a stocks future performance is what you're asking me?. Stock history and market indicators that's how. How and why do you think they pick stocks for the plan in the first place. Seriously man what's wrong with you? You're fucking nuts.

Pharma stocks have historically done well and, as our population ages, will continue to do well for years to come. How are you going to find a equal substitute for that? When deselected in the name of religion who cares how well Pharma stocks have historically done right? lol HL can easily find non Pharma stocks that are doing well and select from them. If such a decision is based on religious conviction which need I remind you is the basis of this discussion then HL should have NO issues pursing this path. Back to my OP or the original point which is why invest in it on the one hand and deny the benefit on the other if it's all done in the name of religion?

If an employee wants to invest 30% of her 401k fund in pharma stocks because she expects Pfizer, Merck, and all the rest will do well over the next 20 years, but the employer has excluded pharma stocks because of the employer's religious beliefs, the employer BREACHES ITS FIDUCIARY DUTY. - LOL yes but the point I'm accurately making is that they CAN and DO have the RIGHT and ABILITY to exclude the fund option. Whether it's on religious grounds or any other ground. It's their choice to include it in the plan and their choice to remove it. You just don't have a full understanding and in the remote chance you do own a business you really need to educate yourself or you're bound to fail,

Why?

Because the employer is acting for its own (religious-based) benefit, rather than operating EXCLUSIVELY for the benefit of the employee.

And that is why NOBODY does what you are saying HL should have done. No - I was point out how hypocritical HL is. It's that simple. You're the moron who doesn't understand. They invest in something they deny.

HL employees can invest their 401k money in pharma stock because HL does not dare breach it fiduciary responsibility by excluding such stock from the plan. already answered.

You are so desperate to prove that HL is hypocritical for refusing to use its own money to provide abortion pills as part of the health care plan while "allowing" employees to use their own money to invest in pharma stocks that you completely ignore the reason way HL cannot legally do that. - They can legally do it (it's a simple procedure) and I'm not desperate at all I'm right and you're wrong and clearly lying about being a business owner. If you are you're the most uneducated business owner I've come across in quite some time.

Now, if you reply, post some FACTUAL links that indicate that HL could have excluded pharma stocks without breaching its fiduciary responsibility Again don't use a word that I taught you to pivot with. It's not about whether not if they do it will they breach fiduciary responsibility but rather can they do it and the answer is YES. Can they do it without breaching YES why? Because when companies remove options from portfolios they typically replace them with an option that also performs well. Again guy you don't have a good base level understanding to be debating me. Go back to school or go read a book. I might be done with this cluster fuck or an argument you're trying to make. It's ridiculous. Originally Posted by ExNYer

See comments in red and have a good weekend. ;-)

Zanzibar's original argument can't be taken seriously. It doesn't even merit a response. Hobby Lobby should make sure that no pharmaceutical or medical device stocks are in the mutual funds that are in employee retirement plans? That's ridiculous.

However, some of his comments are disturbing. For example, several times he demonizes a whole group of people just based on their affiliation. For example,

Yep. Most Republicans have no moral compass Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

This is the kind of argument Nazis used to justify the extermination of Jews and Hutus used to justify killing Tutsis. Fortunately, in the United States of American, you don't have to worry about dying because you're a Republican. Your worst concern is probably an IRS audit if you contributed to the wrong 501(c)(4).

As to the following,

It's like Bill Maher said when comparing kids to embryo's...If an embryo can be safely put in a freezer and left indefinitely then it cannot be compared to a child. if so how many people with kids would fore-go a baby sitter and opt for the freezer instead. - LOL Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

I happen to agree with that, kind of. But still have sympathy with Hobby Lobby's position. Their employee health plan covers all types of contraception, except abortion, the IUD, and the morning after pill. They equate these types of contraception with murder. Zanzibar believes the owners of Hobby Lobby should be forced by the government to pay for what they believe is murder. IMHO, that's just not right.

As others have posted, what's to keep a Hobby Lobby employee from going to the drugstore and paying $50 for Plan B? Or getting it for free at a health clinic or Planned Parenthood? Yeah, if you want to argue that it's a travesty that Planned Parenthood clinics are shutting down in Texas, or that access to health care for the poor including contraception should be improved, I'd agree with you. But the whole Hobby Lobby controversy is an "issue" only because Democrat party bigwigs have twisted and distorted it, in an attempt to get more single women to vote for Democrats.

Say you're an employee of some company with a health plan that covers morning after pills. You have sex and the condom comes off. The next morning you make an appointment with your doctor, wait a couple of days to see her, and then get a prescription for Plan B, which you'll get for free if you've met your deductible and don't have a co-pay. That's bull shit. By that time it won't do any good, it's too late, the drug probably won't work. In other words, making Plan B available over the counter, instead with a doctor's prescription, was a significant move in the right direction. The whole Hobby Lobby thing is irrelevant, unless you're a Democrat Party campaign strategist. The holdings in mutual funds held by employee retirement plans are doubly irrelevant.

Come on Zanzibar, you're obviously a smart guy. Next time pick something more substantive and meritorious to argue about. What's next on your list, the world is flat?

See comments in red and have a good weekend. ;-) Originally Posted by Zanzibar789

Now you are lying. You are changing your story. A sure sign you are losing.

Re-read your original post and some of the other early ones.

Your argument was that HL was a bunch of hypocrites because they allowed their employee 401k funds to be invested in pharma stocks.

CLEARLY your point was that they could have and should have blocked them from doing that.

NOW your story is that HL could have selected stocks of equal value and only provided those choices to employees.

And re-read this quote of your above:

Who said anything about excluding stocks for their own financial benefit

Seriously? are you really going to pretend that you were not suggesting that HL excluse stockes? That was the whole POINT of your post. We can read what you wrote Zanziboob.

And I didn't say anything about HL getting a "financial benefit". Can't you read?

I was discussing what would happen if HL excluded pharma stocks for its RELIGIOUS beliefs, NOT financial benefits. Although it would also be a breach of fiduciary duty if they did so for their own financial gain.

Here is more or you stupidity:

No - I was point out how hypocritical HL is. It's that simple. You're the moron who doesn't understand. They invest in something they deny.

HL is not hypocritical for not doing something they are not allowed to do in the first place. Do you not understand that? They would be SUED. And "they" are not investing in something they deny because the money does NOT belong to HL. It belongs to the employees.

Here is more or your stupidity:

I wrote:

If an employee wants to invest 30% of her 401k fund in pharma stocks because she expects Pfizer, Merck, and all the rest will do well over the next 20 years, but the employer has excluded pharma stocks because of the employer's religious beliefs, the employer BREACHES ITS FIDUCIARY DUTY.

And YOU responded

LOL yes but the point I'm accurately making is that they CAN and DO have the RIGHT and ABILITY to exclude the fund option. Whether it's on religious grounds or any other ground. It's their choice to include it in the plan and their choice to remove it. You just don't have a full understanding and in the remote chance you do own a business you really need to educate yourself or you're bound to fail,

What the fuck do you mean "...Yes, but.."

You are AGREEING that it would be a breach of its fiduciary duty not to include the stocks, but you also say they have the RIGHT to exclude the stock?

Can you write a coherent sentence?

Clearly, pharma stocks are available to HL employees in their 401K plan. Just a clearly, HL is NOT excluding those stocks from Magellan or Vanguard or what ever funds they invest in because they KNOW that if they get that involved in the 401K plan, they will be breaching their fiduciary duty by excluding ANY stock based on their religious beliefs.

Now you are lying. You are changing your story. A sure sign you are losing.

Re-read your original post and some of the other early ones.

Your argument was that HL was a bunch of hypocrites because they allowed their employee 401k funds to be invested in pharma stocks.

CLEARLY your point was that they could have and should have blocked them from doing that.

NOW your story is that HL could have selected stocks of equal value and only provided those choices to employees.

And re-read this quote of your above:

Who said anything about excluding stocks for their own financial benefit

Seriously? are you really going to pretend that you were not suggesting that HL excluse stockes? That was the whole POINT of your post. We can read what you wrote Zanziboob.

And I didn't say anything about HL getting a "financial benefit". Can't you read?

I was discussing what would happen if HL excluded pharma stocks for its RELIGIOUS beliefs, NOT financial benefits. Although it would also be a breach of fiduciary duty if they did so for their own financial gain.

Here is more or you stupidity:

No - I was point out how hypocritical HL is. It's that simple. You're the moron who doesn't understand. They invest in something they deny.

HL is not hypocritical for not doing something they are not allowed to do in the first place. Do you not understand that? They would be SUED. And "they" are not investing in something they deny because the money does NOT belong to HL. It belongs to the employees.

Here is more or your stupidity:

I wrote:

If an employee wants to invest 30% of her 401k fund in pharma stocks because she expects Pfizer, Merck, and all the rest will do well over the next 20 years, but the employer has excluded pharma stocks because of the employer's religious beliefs, the employer BREACHES ITS FIDUCIARY DUTY.

And YOU responded

LOL yes but the point I'm accurately making is that they CAN and DO have the RIGHT and ABILITY to exclude the fund option. Whether it's on religious grounds or any other ground. It's their choice to include it in the plan and their choice to remove it. You just don't have a full understanding and in the remote chance you do own a business you really need to educate yourself or you're bound to fail,

What the fuck do you mean "...Yes, but.."

You are AGREEING that it would be a breach of its fiduciary duty not to include the stocks, but you also say they have the RIGHT to exclude the stock?

Can you write a coherent sentence?

Clearly, pharma stocks are available to HL employees in their 401K plan. Just a clearly, HL is NOT excluding those stocks from Magellan or Vanguard or what ever funds they invest in because they KNOW that if they get that involved in the 401K plan, they will be breaching their fiduciary duty by excluding ANY stock based on their religious beliefs.
Originally Posted by ExNYer

Quoted for prosperity. ;-)

These are your original comments:

Hobby Lobby doesn't control the 401(k) plan. They hire plan managers who provide employees with different choices of investment funds - indexed funds, money markets, bonds, foreign funds, etc. The company doesn't pick the funds.
Hobby Lobby has to deduct the money from their salaries, but the money belongs to the EMPLOYEES and the EMPLOYEES pick how THEIR money gets invested.
In fact, I think it might be illegal for Hobby Lobby to interfere with employee' 401(k) contributions.


So, if employees invest in Pfizer, which makes a LOT of drugs, not just birth control pills because Pfizer provides a good return, then Hobby Lobby can't do shit about it.

These are my original comments

Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure they're actively involved and interested in the performance of the 401K plan offering. If not they can be sued by the employees for mismanagement so they cannot solely rely on the word of the plan administrator whom they hired.

How is this handled? Typically by quarterly meetings in fact the plan manager / administrator will typically insist they be present at these quarterly meetings to avoid dereliction of duty so to speak. My point is you cannot make the claim that Hobby Lobby doesn't control or even know of the investments the plan offers. You're a moron of the highest order if you believe they had no idea and if so they're incompetent at worst and disingenuous at best.

You had NO idea employees could sue a company for dereliction of duty so to speak until I taught you that. You had no idea or concept of fiduciary responsibility until I taught you that. You then went frantically searching the net for an answer only to find out I'm still right and that's when your descent into this mental "vortex" began.

I think at this point you and I both know that you don't run a business. These comments of yours are simply beyond the pale seems as if there's something misfiring upstairs. I cannot continue go back and forth with a guy who's (1) outright lying about owning a business and setting up 401K plans while (2) not having a clue as to how the process works and (3) continues to quote me to confirm I'm right and agree with me only to suggest I'm wrong.



I used to be a debate team captain and the only time I ran into situations like this is when the person proved to have a mental defect, really didn't understand the question or debate topic and twisted things so much in their minds till they couldn't escape the vortex. It seems all 3 of these apply to you at once. It's really counter productive and I've let this charades go on long enough.

In the context of you not understanding how this process works and then compounding that by LYING about owning / running a business let me answer your questions below.
[QUOTE=ExNYer;1055957014]

Re-read your original post and some of the other early ones.Your argument was that HL was a bunch of hypocrites because they allowed their employee 401k funds to be invested in pharma stocks. CLEARLY your point was that they could have and should have blocked them from doing that. Yes that was the point and it still is the point. They objected to the benefit on the grounds of religious conviction therefore to be consistent with religious dogma and conviction why allow a drug that kills babies (by virtue of those who manufacture it) to be part of your portfolio offering. If you object to your employees using it. This isn't about HL paying for something they can't afford to, rather it's about them not paying for it due to religious conviction.

NOW your story is that HL could have selected stocks of equal value and only provided those choices to employees. YES but only in your mind has my story changed and the reason for that is you don't have a very good base level understanding of how things work to begin with. So it doesn't surprise me you don't get it. Now that I know what kind of person I'm debating I actually anticipated that. ;-). HL in tandem with the plan admin (they hired) could have selected a different fund option and provided this choice to employees. They can do it on religious grounds or non-religious grounds (fund improvement basis) it doesn't matter.



Let's take a 3rd look at my original statement that clearly shows what it could mean not carrying out their fiduciary responsibility.

Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure they're actively involved and interested in the performance of the 401K plan offering. If not they can be sued by the employees for mismanagement so they cannot solely rely on the word of the plan administrator whom they hired.

Being actively involved in the process to ensure fiduciary responsibility is an ongoing effort. Not participating in regular meetings to help manage and understand the investments could be considered a breach. Could employees sue as a result of this negligence? Yes they could. Would they win? Maybe maybe not. I just find it comical you're now saying they could be sued after I mentioned that fact to you. Are you still in high school or what? Lol

Taking out well performing options and not replacing them could also mean a breach (though not by law) but most companies typically replace. What the Dept of Labor would be looking for is a pattern to determine the fiduciary part of my comment. That's why I mentioned the quarterly meetings. Doesn't have to be an equal option either. Portfolio managers remove and replace options all the time. Even though you can you shouldn't narrowly associate the term "fiduciary responsibility" to the singular act of removing a fund option and it seems that's where you miss the mark. I think it would be wise for you to try to understand how the process works as a whole so that you can connect the dots in your head. Yes HL can remove Pfizer from their portfolio on any grounds they choose but most often when a decision like that is made it's made on the basis of improvement to the fund which ultimately projects confidence in the company itself.

The original and simple point again is that if you're so strong regarding your religious beliefs (which in the HL case has proven to be a fraud and a sham) then the right thing to do so that you have nothing to do with "killing babies" is to remove Pfizer from the offering and replace them with a suitable alternative. Anything less means you're not really pro-life because you're supporting a company that makes drugs to kill babies when you don't have to when you could do something about it which is to remove them from for offering and replace them with something else. It's that simple.

You guys defending HL also proves you have no real religious convictions because you know I'm right but your ideology forces you to continue to spin the truth because it would look weak to be wrong and would expose your hypocrisy. This is danger in being a religious conservative when you have beliefs like that it prevents you from fully thinking through a scenario. HL in my view let money trump their convictions on the investment side but they get to pray to God at night and feel good because they wouldn't support employees buy allowing it in the benefit plan. It's called stunning hypocrisy. Defend it if you wish that's your choice.
[QUOTE=ExNYer;1055957014]

Zanzibar's original argument can't be taken seriously. It doesn't even merit a response. Hobby Lobby should make sure that no pharmaceutical or medical device stocks are in the mutual funds that are in employee retirement plans? That's ridiculous.

However, some of his comments are disturbing. For example, several times he demonizes a whole group of people just based on their affiliation. For example,




This is the kind of argument Nazis used to justify the extermination of Jews and Hutus used to justify killing Tutsis. Fortunately, in the United States of American, you don't have to worry about dying because you're a Republican. Your worst concern is probably an IRS audit if you contributed to the wrong 501(c)(4).

As to the following,



I happen to agree with that, kind of. But still have sympathy with Hobby Lobby's position. Their employee health plan covers all types of contraception, except abortion, the IUD, and the morning after pill. They equate these types of contraception with murder. Zanzibar believes the owners of Hobby Lobby should be forced by the government to pay for what they believe is murder. IMHO, that's just not right.

As others have posted, what's to keep a Hobby Lobby employee from going to the drugstore and paying $50 for Plan B? Or getting it for free at a health clinic or Planned Parenthood? Yeah, if you want to argue that it's a travesty that Planned Parenthood clinics are shutting down in Texas, or that access to health care for the poor including contraception should be improved, I'd agree with you. But the whole Hobby Lobby controversy is an "issue" only because Democrat party bigwigs have twisted and distorted it, in an attempt to get more single women to vote for Democrats.

Say you're an employee of some company with a health plan that covers morning after pills. You have sex and the condom comes off. The next morning you make an appointment with your doctor, wait a couple of days to see her, and then get a prescription for Plan B, which you'll get for free if you've met your deductible and don't have a co-pay. That's bull shit. By that time it won't do any good, it's too late, the drug probably won't work. In other words, making Plan B available over the counter, instead with a doctor's prescription, was a significant move in the right direction. The whole Hobby Lobby thing is irrelevant, unless you're a Democrat Party campaign strategist. The holdings in mutual funds held by employee retirement plans are doubly irrelevant.

Come on Zanzibar, you're obviously a smart guy. Next time pick something more substantive and meritorious to argue about. What's next on your list, the world is flat? Originally Posted by Tiny

See my last comment to EXnyEr. However, I will say that it's not about costs it's about religious convictions. Yes HL could afford to pay for it but they don't due to religious convictions. Again this isn't about the cost of the pill it's about the hypocritical / moral beliefs of the company and yes I should not have said "Republicans" I should have said "most" Republicans so I apologize for that.

Did you just say something about "hypocrisy"?

Did you just say something about "hypocrisy"?


Originally Posted by lustylad

+1