It’s irrelevant except that it’s the question I asked and which a couple of people don’t want to answer for some strange reason. 
The answer is that no, the Republicans would not support universal taxpayer-supported contraception.
Correct!
What if a majority of voting citizens want it? Just hypothetically.
Cite please.
Then the Republicans would pay a price for that opposition. Really, I’m kinda surprised Democrats haven’t just gone that route for their response to SCOTUS’ decision. Amending RFRA seems like it’s fraught with peril to me, although they are writing in a really narrow clause.
In case you missed it, there’s just a titch of sarcasm in that post.
You never know; Poe’s law and all that 
This is contrary to everything I have ever heard. Can you direct me to some authority for this statement?
ITR and bump were actually talking about the deductibles and not the overall cost.
For the policies I’ve looked at, I have to agree. Those deductibles are shockingly high. I sincerely doubt the average household has 3-5k in disposable income ready to spend if needed.
It’s not like Republicans would complain about the “skyrocketing” cost of health care if we were already 1.5-2x what the rest of the industrialized world was paying pre-ACA, and our current yearly increases were inline with historical averages. That would be dishonest.
Most employers who offer the HDHP along with an HRA or HSA also make contributions to fund the HRA or HSA so that much of the high deductible is covered by the employer. This allows employers to offer health insurance plans that cost less but still cover a basic level of service at no cost to the employee.
Just want to note that before Obamacare this was not an option for many people. Group plans had to take everyone no matter what pre-existing conditions they had - private plans did not. I would never have gotten insurance back then, and certainly not cheaper insurance.
Not to mention that I would lose out on my employer’s subsidy, which is like taking a salary cut.
Today it is more feasible to do what you propose. I trust there will be an email thanking Mr. Obama from you shortly.
(Post shortened, bolding mine)
Have there been a lot of cases where employers have refused to fund insurance plans, on strictly religious grounds, that covered men’s reproductive health issues? I don’t recall any occasion when such a case had to go before the Supreme Court for resolution, questionable or otherwise. That might explain why there was no uproar over the injustice of it all, since it’s not really an issue or anything.
This is true in my case as well and I forgot to mention that in my post. I don’t know if my results are typical or not but my company contributes about half of what my deductible is. Last year, my deductible rose an additional $1000 and my employer’s contribution remained the same.
Ha ha. Totally ignored, just like one would imagine it to be.
Saying you can either take a job or not is almost never a fair choice. People generally don’t get to pick and choose jobs at their own pace
The lack of coverage for two specific kinds of contraception is not going to be a financial hardship for Hobby Lobby employees.
Actually, it wouldn’t be a financial hardship even for Wal-mart employees. You pay for that contraception in your insurance. If it’s not covered, you don’t. Since contraception is not something that people insure against, being a predictable cost, it’s not something you can save money on through insurance. You either pay for it as part of your policy, or out of pocket. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Additionally, benefits are rarely discussed prior to accepting a position, or if they are, without much detail. You usually don’t even get to see the plans offered until you’re selecting one. I can’t imagine discussing contraceptives in your interview would go over terribly well.
Negative. As part of a group, you share costs. So the 50% of people who aren’t using contraceptives are subsidizing the 50% who are.