Or they could just keep their noses out of their employees bedrooms.
This is based off a improper premise. Whether or not a given service is offered on a given health care plan has nothing to do with someone's right to a given service. Whether or not someone has the money to obtain a given service has nothing to do with their right to said service. One's right to something simply means that the government cannot legally forbid it to them, not that someone is required to provide it.
That's exactly what the law does. It leaves the choice of using birth contol up to the individual not a Corporation.
No it removes the choices and the freedom of two or more entities to negotiate their own business. And it also removes from the covered the choice of which services (s)he wants on their medical insurance. Because BC services are required on all medical insurances, I, as a single male, must have and pay for BC coverage, a service that I shall never use. So much for my individual choice.
Part of many women's healthcare includes using birth control. Why should a company choose for them? Especially since it is a cost saving benefit. Hobby Lobby does not pay one extra dime for it. It is also a purely religous issue that is subject to seperation of church and state. A company may not impose their religous views on their employees.
False premise again. For the company to impose a religious view as such, then they would need to tell their female employees that they may not use MAP at all, as opposed to not providing it themselves. To force the company to provide the MAP would be to impose a religious view upon the company, the very act that you seek to stop.
What I don't understand is why it doesn't violate their religion when an employee purchases a morning after pill themselves. After all the company paid the salary that paid for the purchase. It is still their money that bought the thing.
Once the money changes hands for services rendered (the work the employee does) the money is no longer the company's but the employee's. Therefore the company is paying for the MAP when the employee purchases it for themselves, or even if the employee obtains their own insurance outside of what the company offers.
What's really happening here is that the employer wants to tell the employee what they can and cannot do in their off-hours, in a bedroom which is none of the employer's damn business.
That's the reality.
Not the reality. The willingness of the company to provide or not provide BC in no way tells the employee what they can and cannot do in the bedroom during off-hours. How does a lack of employer provided BC, verses the general availability of BC, affect what one does in the bedroom?
They're not being compelled to provide it, the plan that is offered simply includes it and they are making a big deal of insisting it is removed from the plan offered by the insurance company.
Incorrect. On an assumption of government mandating not being present, then insurance companies would, and have, offered various services and bundle plans. Every service the company provides costs and the potential cost is figured into each plan. If the plan doesn't have BC then those cost are not needed and the overall plan is less expensive. By forcing all insurance companies to carry BC, you are forcing other companies to pay for that BC, or at least you are if you also require them to provide insurance coverage, another violation of freedom in and of itself. Now if there were no government mandate on what the insurance companies had to provide, then other companies could shop to find the one or more that had plans that matched what they are willing to provide.
just as there is no reason to mandate cancer coverage
or
care for heart attacks or stroke
Someone who gets it.....although I'm sure that was supposed to be sarcasm. But yes, exactly! There is no reason to mandate any business between individuals, companies or any combination of the two.
I agree. For example, no one has the right to impose on Hobby Lobby the religious view that the morning after pill is morally acceptable, or force them to take part in what they perceive as evil, any more than we have the right to force Muslim grocers to carry and sell pork. Hobby Lobby, in turn, has no right to impose their religious views on anyone else, and has no right to stop their employees from going and getting birth control on their own.
Let me add in with this that it doesn't matter if some or even all Muslim grocers do carry and sell pork. There is no reason to mandate it.
That is not medically unethical. Though I do think that all of that should be covered, and this whole debate just illustrates that it is ridiculous to have health insurance tied to employment. Which is why I wanted a single payer system.
If it wasn't tied to employment by law, it would probably be a lot lower. In parallel with that if certain coverages were not required by law, including preventive care, the costs would not be as high.
The problem is that liberals want health care as a right. They want full-coverage single-payer. As evidenced by this contraception mandate.
No they want health care payment as a right. Health care is already a right, even if they won't admit it. There is no law ANYWHERE deny ANYONE access to health care. Lack of ability to compensate the provider of a service is not the same as being denied access to the service.
You can't claim that a third party(a) providing services to another third party(B) violates your freedom of religion; it doesn't work that way.
You can when you are paying (a) to provide (b) the services. When all the money exchanged is only between (a) and (b),
then you have no say
Birth control pills are widely regarded as the best option to treat those conditions and I'd put more faith in a doctor on these matters than some guy who hocks cheap art supplies for a living. The point is that you don't know why an employee may need birth control. It could be for one, or more, of the aforementioned medical conditions or they may not use that benefit at all. The religious argument rings hollow. You can't claim a religious exemption because of an imagined action which doesn't involve you directly, hasn't occurred, may never occur, and which you would never know if it had occurred.
The problem with this argument is in classifying these drugs as birth control drugs. If a drug that is used for issues like BC, PE or ED can also be used to treat other life threatening conditions, then their use for the later conditions is not a violation of religions views, at least not related to BC. Has there ever been a study done that compares a company's/person's view on the different applications of the same given drug and the inclusion of said drug in insurance for the various purposes? I would like to see that. For example: Viagra is used to treat both ED and Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. How many people would be ok with the prescribing of Viagra for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension paid for on the taxpayer's back, but not when it's prescribed for ED?
