However, the other issue at hand is that these birth control items, are not only used for birth control. All are Dr. prescribed and some of them, specifically the IUD, are used to prevent several conditions, such as anemia.
FYI, no one who works gets health insurance for free. Employees 'earn' their health insurance in lieu of higher wages. So if a small to medium sized company doesn't want to provide their employees insurance they have the option to pay the employees a higher wage so they can buy their own insurance from an exchange....or pay a fine that will cover the cost and the employee will get the tax credits instead of the employer.
Most companies are either subsidized or reimbursed through tax deductions what they spend on an employees health insurance. So all that nonsense about spending 'other peoples money'.....is just that, nonsense.
The SCOTUS didn't restore anything back to "we the people"....but they did legislate a new law that grants religious rights to corporations. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), who introduced the RFRA in 1993, said his law "was not intended to extend the same protection to for-profit corporations, whose very purpose is to profit from the open market." Schumer called the Supreme Court ruling "unprecedented" and "dead-wrong" for expanding the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to cover closely held corporations, like Hobby Lobby,...."The SCOTUS ruling I believe does open the door to more choice. I can see scenarios in which Jehovah Witnesses could refuse to pay for blood transfusions, Christian Scientists could refuses to pay for innoculations, Orthodox Jews could refuse to pay for any medications derived from pork, and we could continue down a very long list.
Apart from the dishonest and incompetent way it was put together and sold to the people, and the unsustainable expense of it, the most galling part of Obamacare for me is the idea that government is dictating to insurance companies what product they are required to sell if they sell any product, dictating to employers the product they are required to offer their employees, and the people are dictated what product they are required to buy or be fined/taxed.
In an extremely limited way, SCOTUS, whether intentionally or coincidentally, has restored a tiny smidgeon of choice to we the people.
Supreme Court health insurance decision denounced by New Yorkers - Top News - InsuranceNewsNet.com
Another tidbit...the four birth control methods that HL object to and based their case on are not abortificants and don't cause abortions like they claim.
The SCOTUS ruling seems to be based more on misinformation, deception and politics than jurisprudence or the law.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
This is getting ridiculous. We're talking about the damn pill, not life saving medicine here.
It has virtually no impact on employee health or productivity whatsoever.
Frankly, where the lower rungs of the work force are concerned, it's a lot cheaper to simply swap employees out than subsidize their healthcare anyway. They are essentially wholly expendable unskilled labor, who can be replaced at any moment's notice.
No, but they most certainly do have the right to decide which treatments their money will or will not go towards paying.But they don't have a right to decide what the best remedy for your personal health problems are.
The idea that employer provided healthcare is any kind of "right" in the first place is simply absurd.
Again, if it's not your money, it's not your decision what it does or does not get spent on.If a doctor says an IUD is the best remedy for a woman who can't take hormonal drugs to prevent pregnancy then who is the employer to say otherwise? Who are you to judge a woman who might die if she gets pregnant and needs to prevent getting pregnant from her husband? Why is that even your business at all?
If you happen to have an employer who, out of the goodness of their heart, is willing to pay for any treatment under the sun, more power to you. However, do not imagine that it is anything to which you are entitled as a matter of objective "right."
It is a privilege and a luxury, and a rather unnecessary one at that.
If it were my business, I wouldn't shell out a single dime for any of it.
As has already been established, neither of those things are "free," nor should they be.Likewise on your vasectomy and Viagra.
Not my problem.They aren't very reliable methods.
I don't give a damn what they do with regard to their personal lives. That is why the thing is known as a "personal life" in the first place.Actually, I think you are suggesting that married men should abstain from sex unless it's to get their wife pregnant. Unless you want the employers to pay for the man's sex life outside the marriage and run the risk of getting STDs and passing it on to his wife and children. That would be quite a burden on the employers bottom line too, don't cha think?
I'm simply saying that there's no reason why any employer should be forced to subsidize someone else's lifestyle.
Apparently, the SCOTUS agrees.
I disagree, and so does the Supreme Court.Business and labor are a two way street and work best when there is an equilibrium. Currently, the equilibrium is out of balance.
"Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her." -- G.K. Chesterton