The law is that large employers have to provide health care or pay a penalty.
The employer shouldn’t be able to provide shittier health care just because he feels it is morally right. Your assertion that they can “just buy it themselves” is nonsense. Yeah, they can also just pay for medical care out of pocket. That completely ignores the point of employers providing health care.
I understand the purpose of the equality law, however, nobody is forced to work for any employer at any time. We make the personal choice to obtain a job with whatever entity/company/etc… we choose. Given this element of choice, I do not agree that employers should have certain mandates forced upon them, such as contraception, if it violates a religious belief. Besides, if individuals disagree with a potential employer’s beliefs, they will choose not to work for them, and if enough individuals make that choice, then the employer may have to change their modus operandi. Such is the beauty of a free economy
It ceases to be the employer’s money when it is a benefit negotiated with the employee. Employers don’t get to tell employees what to do with their wages, nor their insurance benefits. It’s not their money any more.
The employers also make a personal choice to become employers. They don’t get to decide what laws to break based on their personal feelings.
As said below, should a Jehovah’s Witness be able to provide coverage without blood transfusions?
Should one of those insane prayer-only people only pay for in-home prayer leaders?
What if the employer is anti-vax?
What if the employer is a vegan, can the refuse to provide the services of a nutritionist?
What if the employer believes that anal stimulation is awesome, can they require that only suppositories are covered?
Unfortunately the state of health care in this country is such that a lot of people couldn’t afford health insurance if their employer didn’t agree to help cover the cost and made it part of their compensation.
By the way the answer to this question is yes. Religious organizations are not obliged to cover contraception. It’s provided by the insurer free of charge.
How about an employer that feels that the taxes his company pays are being used for purposes he disagrees with on religious grounds? Is he exempt from paying income tax? (let’s leave the issue of exemptions for religious institutions aside, for the moment, that’s a whole 'nother kettle of fish…)
Because this pretty much amounts to the same thing.
Absolutely true, but at which point does the other side of that line get crossed? Those who are religious business owners are being forced to pay for something they consider a sin in their own religion. Anyone who says “too bad” is just as bad as the religious zealots who impose their religious philosophies onto others. (hypothetical)“Oh you must provide birth control because denying your employees this is now against the law. No, don’t care if this violates your personal beliefs. Stop imposing your ideals on us you prick!”
I understand what those of you defending this law are saying, but do you see what I mean? On the one hand the employees should be provided the same benefits as everyone else according to law, but this also shouldn’t enfringe the employers religious beliefs regardless of motive. One could easily say to choose a different employer that provide the benefits that suit you. A bit of a grey area for me.
I think that’s the key point everyone is trying to get across.
Religious beliefs aren’t something that trumps rational laws. It should never be.
The examples given illustrate the fact that religious beliefs are irrational. They have no place whatsoever in deciding what healthcare is available to anyone. That’s the point.
If there is a rational reason for not including contraceptives as part of a healthy, safe, sound, and viable base level of healthcare, then god damn it, point it out.
Don’t hold up your book of bronze age sheep herder “wisdom” and expect that to settle the debate.
Let’s not forget that the State of MO already had a case over this issue.
Allow me to simply say based on that case - good luck to you then.
"Women who get their insurance through their religiously-affiliated employer will have to keep paying those contraception co-pays for the next year as well.
The Obama administration gave religiously-affiliated employers, such as some universities and hospitals, a one-year exemption to the free birth control requirement after many raised religious objections to paying for something they consider a sin.
Those religious organizations still have to provide insurance that offers the seven other services cited in the women’s health rule taking effect today at no cost to employees. Those co-pay free services include: a yearly well-woman doctors visit, HPV testing, gestational diabetes testing for pregnant women, counseling for sexually transmitted diseases, HIV screening and counseling, breast pumps and domestic violence counseling.
So in reality, the only women who can stroll out of the pharmacy with free birth control are those who have private insurance, whose plans have changed since March 2010, who do not work for religious organizations and whose plans either begin August 1 or whose insurance companies have decided to offer the benefit earlier than required by law."
What line is being crossed? As pointed out, should we allow Christian Scientist employers to forgo healthcare altogether?
My guess is that you would say no, we can’t allow THAT.
Why not? The argument is the same. You are insisting that religious reasons somehow, and at least in some cases, trumps rational decisions, regardless of the societal good.
On what basis? Certainly not a rational one.
If you, or these catholic employers think they have a rational reason for not including contraception as part fo a base healthcare, they should let legislators in on the big secret.
But they don’t. Their reason amounts to: because my interpretation of my holy book told me so.
That is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
Some faiths don’t like Social Security or Federal Income tax. So, if their employees were free to pay their own, even both halves of SocSec would that be OK too? I mean, all that is happening is that the ‘employer is asking that they not subsidize" that payment, right? :rolleyes:
I don’t think insurance is negotiated with the employee. Companies have a plan or plans and employees have the option of taking the plan or not. Employers negotiate with the insurance companies to provide specific plans for their employees.
It would cease to be the employers’ money if they gave their employees a fixed amount of money to purchase whatever plan they want. This is theoretical since I fully understand the problem of individuals taking this money and purchasing insurance on their own.
False equivalence alert. Making something available on the principle that everybody should have access to it is not the same as trying to prevent someone from doing something because you don’t want to pay for it.
If you’re opposed to contraception for religious reasons, don’t use it. I am not convinced that your freedom of religion extends to picking a health plan that doesn’t choose contraception (and women take contraceptives for reasons beyond trying not to get pregnant) regardless of the religion of your employees.
And if the religion had prohibitions against (expensive and inconvenient) employee safety laws?
Uhm, yes sometimes it is. The Amish are not required to pay FICA.
This is not always going to swing just one way or the other. There are conflicting interests involved, and that’s what the courts will have to figure out.
Health insurance is a benefit negotiated with the employee when they are first hired, along with salary, vacation, retirement and other benefits. Health insurance is a form of compensation, and the employer should have no expectation of controlling what the employee does with any compensation, be it wages, vacation, retirement or health insurance.
The price paid by the employee may be up for negotiation but not the specifics of the policies offered (in most instances). Also, a benefit implies that that the employer can refuse to offer insurance which is no longer the case under the health care reform. Yes, technically they can refuse to offer a policy and pay the fines but that is a far cry from a “benefit”.
Employers already DO control what employees do with insurance “compensation”. Many employers offer shitty plans with high deductibles only in order to control costs. Some employers offer vision and dental while others do not. An employer who does not offer vision is not controlling the employees’ access to an optometrist. They are simply refusing to offer a policy that pays for it.
But now, all policies have a minimum level of quality. That minimum level includes birth control.
Allowing random religious people to ignore that minimum level is like saying a sandwich shop can ignore health regulations because the owner doesn’t believe in the germ-theory of disease.
Should an apartment complex be required to rent to mixed-race couples if the owner sincerely believes that miscegenation is a sin?