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.
There are groups who are opposed to the use of vaccines on religious grounds. If the owner of a company holds such beliefs should we allow him to demand that the insurance policies he offers to his employees don't cover vaccines?
Allowing employers to make medical decisions that should be left between doctors and their patients is a slippery slope that will lead to nothing good.
If it was my company and the government tried to dictate that I pay for some fringe benefit that violated my religious beliefs I'd shut it down. I'd close the doors and tell them to go pound sand. Employer provided health insurance is a fringe benefit. It's not something that is guaranteed to us in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
The question is if some companies can object to healthcare that provides contraceptives because owners object on religious grounds can a company also provide healthcare that does not provide for blood transfusions because they are Seventh Day Adventists and object to them on religious grounds?
The real question is this: Why should government be making you do ANYTHING? Much less anything that infringes on someone's moral, ethical, religious, or other beliefs? What on earth is government doing by being so controlling in our lives that it's now mandating stuff that strays across boundaries of faith and morality?
How people spend their paycheck is not a good analogy in this case. Employers pay for their employees' coverage -- sometimes all of it, sometimes a portion of it, and the employee contributes. Employers don't have to provide coverage at all. So I do believe an employer can decide what kind of coverage will be provided and what will be included. Every piece of it adds to the cost.
Why is it not a good analogy? Employers pay salaries as well as cover (partially in many instances) health insurance. What if they did not approve of alcohol and said they would not be responsible for you buying alcohol with the money they paid you? Telling people what to spend their salaries on or what health procedures or prescriptions they are allowed is just bullying. Those employers would only end up hiring people of the same beliefs and maybe that is best. I would never work for a company that stuck its nose into my health insurance. I remember when employers started saying they did not want people who smoked tobacco or pot even when they weren't at work and blamed it on health insurance costs. Talk about infringing on personal freedoms! This is just one more reason why health insurance should be single payer and not connected to employment.
Sorry, but the reason a company is formed is to separate its from its owners. A company is not religious. And the idea of allowing a company to force its religion on others is ludicrous. Seriously. A company is NOT you. You could argue that your employees should not be able to spend money you give them on birth control! This is just all sorts of crazy.
In FACT...until the ACA controversy Hobby lobby didnt seem to object to the fact that the plans it paid for covered birth control! Wow...suddenly NOW it matters? Hmmmmm
Hey there is a TON of different religions....given that they all could hold shares, maybe we should just outlaw corporations from having any insurance, I mean hey, a Scientologist could own some shares! What do satanists believe?
This is a waste of the courts time. The only reason they are hearing it at all is because they were foolish enough to pass the citizens united decision, which was the justification for the lower court to rule for hobby lobby. Yeah the ol citizens united is biting them in the butt. Imagine that.
Sorry, but the reason a company is formed is to separate its from its owners. A company is not religious. And the idea of allowing a company to force its religion on others is ludicrous. Seriously. A company is NOT you. You could argue that your employees should not be able to spend money you give them on birth control! This is just all sorts of crazy.
In FACT...until the ACA controversy Hobby lobby didnt seem to object to the fact that the plans it paid for covered birth control! Wow...suddenly NOW it matters? Hmmmmm
Hey there is a TON of different religions....given that they all could hold shares, maybe we should just outlaw corporations from having any insurance, I mean hey, a Scientologist could own some shares! What do satanists believe?
This is a waste of the courts time. The only reason they are hearing it at all is because they were foolish enough to pass the citizens united decision, which was the justification for the lower court to rule for hobby lobby. Yeah the ol citizens united is biting them in the butt. Imagine that.
The case is specifically about the Plan B pill and that other one you can take a week after.
They want the same exemption that churches and other religious organizations got.
Plan B was never covered before because it's new.
Over the county for $30.
Maybe you should read up on the info before commenting on it ?
Employers don't pay for coverage out of some paternalist largess. It is COMPENSATION, people. Benefits are part of YOUR pay and the employer has no business telling you how your money is spent. They write the insurance costs off as compensation too. So if they want to pick and choose how they spend your money, the least thing is the IRS should rule that they get no deduction for it any more. I think they would change their tune in a hurry.
The case is specifically about the Plan B pill and that other one you can take a week after.
They want the same exemption that churches and other religious organizations got.
Plan B was never covered before because it's new.
Over the county for $30.
Maybe you should read up on the info before commenting on it ?
Plan B was released for prescription in 1999, and over the counter in 2006 I believe. Its been covered as a prescription by their plan for over a decade, its only now that they have an issue.
Trying to compare a corporation to a religious institution is not convincing. I am well aware of the facts. A corporation != a church.
Plan B was released for prescription in 1999, and over the counter in 2006 I believe. Its been covered as a prescription by their plan for over a decade, its only now that they have an issue.
Trying to compare a corporation to a religious institution is not convincing. I am well aware of the facts. A corporation != a church.
One set of judges said No. Another set overturned them and said yes.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
YOU don't need to be convinced of anything since you are not a judge.
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.
