Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They don't have to - yet. It was something they did as a perk for employees.
The broader question of public versus private health insurance is a bigger topic.
I'm afraid to say that unless a employee has some kind of health care for its employees then these employees cannot get health care...... this is no longer a perk and hasn't been for many years now... it has become a necessity for millions in America and it is now a important factor in choosing a job..........
When the Republicans failed to get traction on the economic argument, they resorted to their standbys of social issues. They happened to pick one that resonated with a lot of people and will cost them in the fall.
You have it backwards, as has been pointed out previously, Obama started this fight.
How is the requirement to purchase health insurance any different than a state requiring you to purchase auto insurance? People do that every day without pooping their diaper in anger. The reasoning behind the requirements is exactly the same.
The fact that you made this statement shows you have lack of knowledge on the subject.
IF you do NOT own a car, you are NOT required to have car insurance.
Even IF you own a car and it is NOT registered, IE have license plates, you are NOT required to have car insurance.
Businesses that can prove enough financial resources do NOT have to have car insurance. I worked for one. They are self insured.
I've seen this before. It's not a bad idea and I'd support the ultrasound mandate with the viagra ammendment. So as for Kelly Cassidy thinking she's going to be oh-so-clever in exposing the hypocrisy of conservative white men, well too bad for her. I'm not a hypocrite. She can go pound sand on that one.
That being said, given that she wasn't being serious with this, it's kind of like those idiots in Georgia with their vasectomy bill. Just as a general rule you shouldn't be wasting time with proposing laws that you yourself don't even want to pass just to score political points. It wastes time and money. It's like bringing a frivolous lawsuit. If my representative did that, I would not vote to re-elect him.
Can someone explain to me why the contraceptive issue is such a big deal?
Because peoples' imaginations are straining to dream up new things to bash Obama about?
Or, because Obama's crowd wants to draw attention AWAY from his current poll numbers?
For the record, most colleges give out contraceptives very cheaply; both our daughters went to a Catholic College and the student health center had up info on where they could go to get it if they wanted it. It just wasn't available in the Health Center.
Health insurance is now being forced because, it appears, that having everyone insured AND receiving a standard of care, overall, protects the public.
Right now, uninsured folks are draining the wallets of the healthcare system and the people are already electively paying into it.
The sad fact of the matter is, you can call "health insurance" and option all you want and opt out of it, but invariably you will end up in the ER of some hospital receiving care that you cannot pay for. Your expenses end up being paid for by everyone else. The solution to that, without universal health care, is to make sure you have insurance and that you get preventive treatment that stops you from showing up with a catastrophic illness.
In that way, mandated health insurance protects all the citizens.
I don't want to stray too far from the main purpose of the thread, but I'll give this example. If I'm driving without liability insurance and cause you multi-thousands worth of bills, you're left in really bad shape. If I don't have health insurance and get a heart attack, you won't even know about it. I see a difference between the reasons for the car and health insurance; ok if you don't.
BTW, not liking the car/health insurance analogy doesn't mean someone's against the bc coverage.
I do not want "hurr durr conservatives" or "hurr durr liberals", I'd like some honest responses, please.
The way I see it, is that Obama wasn't specifically targetting businesses that were Catholic (Which seems odd, considering a business isn't exactly capable of having a religion), but all businesses.
Firstly, it's actually not a conservative/liberal issue except for those using it as a political straw man. The business isn't Catholic; it's Catholic owned but it's also not a Catholic issue. All employers are in fact included, the problem is moral convictions of the owner are being ignored.
Compare it to a law that requires all health plans to cover faith healing, exorcism, and breast implants/penile enlargement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimzer
I may be misinformed on this. I can see why an individual Catholic would have a problem with this, but I also know that 99% of people in any given religion are hypocrites in at least one aspect of it, as stated by or interpreted as in their Holy Book.
We're discussing the actions and beliefs of business owners rather than individuals. No one has suggested that individuals can't use (or not use!) BC IAW with their own convictions.
Since HIV is a health issue, should we also have a mandate that insurance to pay for condoms for those infected and clean needles for IV drug users?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimzer
As well, if you're hiring people who aren't of your religion, you shouldn't be pressing your beliefs on them. I am of the opinion that you can talk about religion with others, but to limit them because of your personal beliefs is wrong. Again, I'm opininated on this, and feel free to add your opinion.
No employer is pressing their beliefs on anyone; you are free to seek employment with anyone you choose.
Could be compared to working for Ford and being offended when they don't allow me to use my employee discount to buy a Honda. Perhaps I should go to work at Honda?
So should I go to work for a company owned by someone with religious convictions or for someone who doesn't have a moral objection to BC?
Rather the government is attempting to press their collective beliefs on employers and individuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimzer
This is probably in no way an apt analogy, but what about people who pay for TV packages? They may not want the things that come on on certain channels, but they still have to pay for them. Just because you pay for it doesn't mean you have to use it, and birth control will be used by more people than most things covered by Insurance.
Not a bad analogy, the difference being that there is no government mandate that the provider in include pornography channels in the basic package paid for by everyone. There's sure to be a lot of folks who think they should but most would find it a violation of their own sense of morals; you want to watch it- then you pay for it with no subsidy from the rest of us.
There are employers who have fired employees for smoking.
Private company, their rules. How can anyone argue against it?
If the birth control is prescribed for a medical condition, that's entirely different than taking them for recreational sex.
You might think you'll die if you don't have sex... but believe it or not - you'll live.
Well said. Tried to rep you but it's too soon....................
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well said. Tried to rep you but it's too soon....................
