How far do the religious right intend to go?

[Phi for All]

What are you talking about? Employer provided insurance is a benifit that they have the option of providing. It doesn't matter what kind of tax breaks or whatever else they recieve for doing it. It's not like they are compensating you for anything. If they choose not to provide that benifit it's not like they would have to compensate you in a different way to make up for it. You are treating it as though they have no choice in the matter of providing health insurance.

"It's not like they are compensating you for anything." You HAVE to be joking! Good lord man, haven't you ever had an employer quote you what your total compensation is, with benefits? In my experience, they love to throw that number around.

 

You are fast gaining a reputation for NOT looking at the evidence people provide to support their arguments. As was stated in the article I cited earlier, even fringe benefits are part of your pay, also called your compensation package. It's paid by the employer, sure, for the work that you do for them. If you're giving control of what you do with your compensation over to your employer, then why can't they tell you what you do with your money? With your bonuses? With your pension plan? Your medical insurance is part of your pay, so why should your employer get to dictate how you use it?

 

Your employer basically pays you a total compensation of X. If X is strictly wages, then taxes must be paid on X by both you and your employer. However, if your employer pays you X - the cost of medical insurance but provides you with medical insurance, your compensation stays the same but your employer doesn't pay wage taxes on the insurance as well as writes it off on his business taxes. This is why many employers choose to do this, but it's still your compensation and it's not theirs to decide how you use it. Does that make more sense?

 

http://economix.blog...e-worth-saving/

Both employers and employees seem to believe that the "company" absorbs the cost of the employer's contributions to the group health insurance premiums for their employees — typically 80 percent of the premium.

For their part, employees tend to view employer-paid health insurance as a gift, on top of their pay. Therefore they see little personal gain in attempts to control the cost of their care.

 

Most economists are persuaded by theory and evidence that, over the longer run, the contributions employers make toward the fringe benefits of their employees come out of the employees' take-home pay. Economists think of employers as pickpockets, so to speak, who take a chunk of the employee's total compensation and buy with it whatever fringe benefits they "give" their employees. That process blinds employees to the inroads that their health care makes into their families' livelihood.

Bold added by me.

 

These religious employers still want to provide their employees health insurance, but they would like to do so without contraception. If they do not get this law passed they will ultimately drop their employees insurance. Which will probably be what happens in mass in 2014.

If they try to do this, a mass protest from workers who know better will sweep the country demanding the compensation be increased in wages. If they're going to try to take back a big chunk without making it up to you, are you telling me you'll meekly accept that?

 

Again, it's none of their business what you do with your health insurance. It was your compensation that paid for it, they should be grateful you all accepted the insurance instead of more pay, thus giving the employer a bonus tax deferment.

 

 

 

 

 

It occurs to me that this might be a subtle ploy to reduce employee compensation across the board. If it can be tested with religious institutions, that sets a precedent for major employers to suddenly support pulling out of health insurance as a benefit.

 

The Bell System pulled something like it during their divestiture. Before the Baby Bells, Bell Telephone rates included paying for anything that went wrong with the equipment they provided, including the line from their trunk to your home. Their telephones were practically indestructible because of this.

 

When they were broken up into the independent Baby Bells to avoid monopolizing the industry, their rates stayed the same but suddenly the customer was in charge of anything that went wrong with the lines coming to the house and any equipment that went bad. Then they also started charging for the phones themselves, which were never again as durable. Most people didn't even notice, because Ma Bell always made it sound like the phones they provided were free.

 

It represented a huge hike in the cost of the service without raising any of their advertised rates. Much wool pulled over many eyes.

[Moontanman]

The world according to Justin appears to be a very sinister place, where money rules everything, and those with the money call the shots, those without serve according the wishes and morals of the paymasters.

 

Of course not Sergeant, god is making the calls, he just loves money and control of the population... or is it men that love that.. hard to tell the difference isn't it?

 

Justin, the healthcare package is part of the compensation package, not some moral code by which an employer decides what healthcare is moral and what is not. I suppose the next step in your world is that the employer decides how you spend your salary, and if it is not in accordance with todays moral position, wages will be withheld?

 

Yup, if the religious right has their way that's exactly where we are headed...

 

This really is a step on a very slippery slope.

 

I disagree, think it's a cliff and we are teetering on the very edge of the precipice

[zapatos]

Phi,

 

What are you talking about? Employer provided insurance is a benifit that they have the option of providing. It doesn't matter what kind of tax breaks or whatever else they recieve for doing it. It's not like they are compensating you for anything. If they choose not to provide that benifit it's not like they would have to compensate you in a different way to make up for it. You are treating it as though they have no choice in the matter of providing health insurance.

These religious employers still want to provide their employees health insurance, but they would like to do so without contraception. If they do not get this law passed they will ultimately drop their employees insurance. Which will probably be what happens in mass in 2014.

Sorry if I seem rude, but you have got to be kidding.

How long do you think a Catholic hospital will be in business if they suddenly drop health insurance for all of their nurses? What would happen en masse is the nurses heading for the door.

[JustinW]

Bilko,

 

Let's hope not. Like I said arguement for arguement sake.

 

 

Just for you Justin

 

 

"Orwellian" describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past.

That damn Orwell. Always sees right through me.

 

Moontanman,

 

Do you think someone has the right to make you conform to their religious beliefs just because you work for them?

Do you think someone has the right to make their employer conform to their's just because they want them to pay for something they're not willing to pay for themselves?

 

Who is doing that?

 

If an employer is providing employees with a benifit, shouldn't they get to decide what that benifit is? I know this sort of thinking went out the door with union labor, but let's talk privately owned companies.

 

 

You should not comment if you do not have a dog in the hunt but I am sure you do...

No, I pay full price for my wifes contraception. She takes it religiously. (no pun intended) Like I said, the convo seemed a little one sided. I thought I would try and bring the other point of view to light.

 

 

Hitler was a Roman Catholic creationist, he was religiously motivated to protect the Aryan race from the Jews...

He was raised by Catholic parents, but no where does it say his motivations were religious.

 

 

Just another example of the hypocritical nature of religion...

I said "so?", because I didn't see your point. Explain better if you want a more robust answer.

 

 

Phi,

 

"It's not like they are compensating you for anything." You HAVE to be joking! Good lord man, haven't you ever had an employer quote you what your total compensation is, with benefits? In my experience, they love to throw that number around.

 

You are fast gaining a reputation for NOT looking at the evidence people provide to support their arguments. As was stated in the article I cited earlier, even fringe benefits are part of your pay, also called your compensation package. It's paid by the employer, sure, for the work that you do for them. If you're giving control of what you do with your compensation over to your employer, then why can't they tell you what you do with your money? With your bonuses? With your pension plan? Your medical insurance is part of your pay, so why should your employer get to dictate how you use it?

Yeah they may explain it that way, but...they already have control over that part of your "compensation". They can change policy, price, and even drop the damn thing if they chose to. They can take your bonus, why not your contraception. So you're ultimately saying that any employer that wants to opt out of contraception should just drop the whole damn plan instead of adjust to provide without contraception? Now that's rather extreme.

 

And what evidence have I ignored? I'd hate to be on a fast track. Boy, do I feel sheepish. You keep claiming that insurance is like your money that your employer has no say over. When that is not the case at all. It seems that we have two different definitions of compensation.

 

Your employer basically pays you a total compensation of X. If X is strictly wages, then taxes must be paid on X by both you and your employer. However, if your employer pays you X - the cost of medical insurance but provides you with medical insurance, your compensation stays the same but your employer doesn't pay wage taxes on the insurance as well as writes it off on his business taxes. This is why many employers choose to do this, but it's still your compensation and it's not theirs to decide how you use it. Does that make more sense?

Now that makes a little more sense, although I would have to say that they still pay for it. It may not seem fair, but it is what it is.

 

If they try to do this, a mass protest from workers who know better will sweep the country demanding the compensation be increased in wages. If they're going to try to take back a big chunk without making it up to you, are you telling me you'll meekly accept that?

In todays economy would we have a choice? Some had no choice but to drop their employee's coverage during the peak of the recession. So it can be done. Protest is a different matter. As you can see they hardly get the job done.

 

Again, it's none of their business what you do with your health insurance. It was your compensation that paid for it, they should be grateful you all accepted the insurance instead of more pay, thus giving the employer a bonus tax deferment.

Who ever offered more pay instead? I don't remember any.

 

It occurs to me that this might be a subtle ploy to reduce employee compensation across the board. If it can be tested with religious institutions, that sets a precedent for major employers to suddenly support pulling out of health insurance as a benefit.

It's gotta be one of those pesky corporate conspiracies.

 

zapatos,

How long do you think a Catholic hospital will be in business if they suddenly drop health insurance for all of their nurses? What would happen en masse is the nurses heading for the door.

Sorry to turn this into a political conspiracy, but http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/08/huge-number-of-businesses-to-drop-health-insurance-thanks-to-obamacare/

 

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Obamacare-Small-Businesses-Drop/2011/07/26/id/404838

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/033662_Obamacare_health_coverage.html

 

http://www.bluewavenews.com/2011/06/study-that-claims-businesses-will-drop.html

 

Probably won't happen...

 

Just sayin'.

[CharonY]

If an employer is providing employees with a benifit, shouldn't they get to decide what that benifit is? I know this sort of thinking went out the door with union labor, but let's talk privately owned companies.<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">

 

You are still missing the point. A benefit is not a gracious gift by the employer. It is part of your compensation. Instead of paying you let's say 10-20k extra, he puts it into health insurance. So let us say you either get 40k cash or 30k plus benefits. Especially with large employers the total rate tend to be lower than individual insurance.

 

It would be the equivalent of paying you the 40k and say that you are not allowed to use the 10k for certain things that I dislike.

[Phi for All]

You are still missing the point. A benefit is not a gracious gift by the employer. It is part of your compensation. Instead of paying you let's say 10-20k extra, he puts it into health insurance. So let us say you either get 40k cash or 30k plus benefits. Especially with large employers the total rate tend to be lower than individual insurance.

 

It would be the equivalent of paying you the 40k and say that you are not allowed to use the 10k for certain things that I dislike.

Exactly! The employee gets a better rate on health insurance due to the group coverage, and the employer doesn't have to pay wage taxes on the non-monetary compensation. It works for both sides, but it is NOT a gift. Employers offer competitive compensation to get the best workers. Workers need to stop seeing themselves as charity cases who should be grateful to have a boss who "gives" them health insurance. We work for that coverage as much as we work for the wages.

[zapatos]

 

zapatos,

 

Sorry to turn this into a political conspiracy, but http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/08/huge-number-of-businesses-to-drop-health-insurance-thanks-to-obamacare/

 

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Obamacare-Small-Businesses-Drop/2011/07/26/id/404838

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/033662_Obamacare_health_coverage.html

 

http://www.bluewavenews.com/2011/06/study-that-claims-businesses-will-drop.html

 

Probably won't happen...

 

Just sayin'.

JustinW,

 

Sorry to turn this into a logical fallacy conspiracy, but you said:

 

These religious employers still want to provide their employees health insurance, but they would like to do so without contraception. If they do not get this law passed they will ultimately drop their employees insurance. Which will probably be what happens in mass in 2014.

Not one of your links mentioned one word about religious based institutions or contraception.

 

The groundskeepers get angry when you move the goalposts...

 

Just sayin'

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

Exactly! The employee gets a better rate on health insurance due to the group coverage, and the employer doesn't have to pay wage taxes on the non-monetary compensation. It works for both sides, but it is NOT a gift. Employers offer competitive compensation to get the best workers. Workers need to stop seeing themselves as charity cases who should be grateful to have a boss who "gives" them health insurance. We work for that coverage as much as we work for the wages.

Then why is that something that they can take away without compensating you for the loss of it? Where if we talk about wages, an employer cannot just deduct from your wages. That would be illegal. So classifying benifits as monetary sums that you work for isn't the same. They CHOOSE to give you these benifits. Whether it is in their best interests to give these benifits is irrelevant. They might do it for tax reasons or to get a more competitive corner on the employment market, but all of that doesn't matter when it comes to what they provide and if they can take it away AT THEIR CHOOSING. They are not legally bound to give you that kind of compensation and if they take it from you, they are not legally bound to recompensate you to make up for it. So my origional arguement stands, that they pay for it, they can dictate whether you get it or not, other than an employees WANTS, who is to say what part of that coverage they pay for?

 

zapatos,

 

Not one of your links mentioned one word about religious based institutions or contraception.

 

The groundskeepers get angry when you move the goalposts...

 

Sorry, didn't mean to move the goal posts. I just wanted to give a reason why this argument didn't mean much anyway.

[Phi for All]

Then why is that something that they can take away without compensating you for the loss of it? Where if we talk about wages, an employer cannot just deduct from your wages. That would be illegal. So classifying benifits as monetary sums that you work for isn't the same. They CHOOSE to give you these benifits. Whether it is in their best interests to give these benifits is irrelevant. They might do it for tax reasons or to get a more competitive corner on the employment market, but all of that doesn't matter when it comes to what they provide and if they can take it away AT THEIR CHOOSING. They are not legally bound to give you that kind of compensation and if they take it from you, they are not legally bound to recompensate you to make up for it. So my origional arguement stands, that they pay for it, they can dictate whether you get it or not, other than an employees WANTS, who is to say what part of that coverage they pay for?

I guess I'm just not saying it correctly. I'm at a complete loss as to why an educated guy like yourself can't see his health insurance as part of his pay.

 

Your boss could legally take some of your wages away too, it's not illegal. Many people get pay cuts. But the employer shouldn't get to tell you what your pay is spent on. It's still the employee's money the employer is messing with, and it's up to the employee to either stay or leave and find a job with better compensation. This whole thing wouldn't even be an issue if unemployment weren't so high.

 

If an employer takes too much pay from you, you can file for unemployment even though you quit the job. In essence, you can show the Dept of Unemployment that your employer forced you to quit by reducing the compensation past an acceptable level, and that's the same as firing you (I think that percentage may vary by state).

 

Do you think it's a gift because they call them "fringe" benefits? Or just because they call them "benefits"? Hell, when my car insurance company deducts the amount they'll pay for worn parts damaged in a collision, they call it a "betterment"! It's just a way to make things sound nicer. Employers HAVE to call health insurance a benefit so it doesn't get taxed like wages.

[CharonY]

Regarding the OP: apparently the Virginia bill will be amended not to require the invasive transvaginal ultrasound (though ultrasound is still required). I was not aware that e.g. Idaho and Texas already had such bills My link.

 

Technically the invasive option is not mandated per se, but since they are required to visualize the heartbeat, it is almost inevitable to do so during early stages of pregnancy.

 

Also this makes me wish that it is all only a hoax: My link (the website with the full article appears to be down).

 

"I'm so sorry that I have to do this," the doctor told us, "but if I don't, I can lose my license." Before he could even start to describe our baby, I began to sob until I could barely breathe. Somewhere, a nurse cranked up the volume on a radio, allowing the inane pronouncements of a DJ to dull the doctor's voice. Still, despite the noise, I heard him. His unwelcome words echoed off sterile walls while I, trapped on a bed, my feet in stirrups, twisted away from his voice.

"Here I see a well-developed diaphragm and here I see four healthy chambers of the heart..."

 

I closed my eyes and waited for it to end, as one waits for the car to stop rolling at the end of a terrible accident.

 

At this point I would like to mandate some invasive for everyone before being to allowed to write and pass such laws.

Edited March 23, 2012 by CharonY

[D H]

Prequel: This post is bit off-topic from the discussion of how far the religious right intends to go with respect to birth control, but it is right on-topic with respect to how far the religious right intend to go in general. Mods, please feel free to move this to a new topic if it is too far off-topic.

 

 

Reining in birth control, reversing the sexual revolution, and putting women back in their "proper" place ("barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen") are but part of the overall religious right agenda. Another aspect is education. Teach creationism? Nope, it's unconstitutional. Teach cdesign propentism intelligent design? Nope, that too is unconstitutional. The latest twist is educational freedom. Teach the controversy! (And if a controversy doesn't exist, create one.) Louisiana has its academic freedom law, Tennessee has a bill going to the governor, and other states are following suit.

 

The Tennessee bill:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB0893.pdf

 

Hearing (youtube) (Warning: The nine minute mark and beyond may make your blood boil):

http://youtu.be/tJD59bzg90w

Edited March 24, 2012 by D H

[JustinW]

Phi,

 

I guess I'm just not saying it correctly. I'm at a complete loss as to why an educated guy like yourself can't see his health insurance as part of his pay.

I understand what you're saying, and from an accounting standpoint it would be that cut and dry. But from a workers prospective those are just benifits that are dictated at the will of an employer. Sure the employee would be pissed if they were automatically dropped, but what could they do about it from a legal standpoint? Nothing.

 

 

Your boss could legally take some of your wages away too, it's not illegal.

This really depends on what exactly you're talking about. The way you're speaking of health insurance as being part of your wage is not the same as reducing your pay if they dropped it, which is illegal in Texas without expressed written permission from the employee. An employer cannot take wages away unless it fits a certain criteria for doing so.

 

 

It's still the employee's money the employer is messing with, and it's up to the employee to either stay or leave and find a job with better compensation.

I think you hit the nail on the head here Phi. I think we were talking about the same thing, just in two different ways. You see this compensation as something that should be decided by the employee, while I see this compensation as what it is. "Dictated by the employer." If an employee doesn't like their benifits then they can always find a better place of employment. But to see this compensation as a part of your wage is strictly an accounting viewpoint.

 

 

If an employer takes too much pay from you, you can file for unemployment even though you quit the job. In essence, you can show the Dept of Unemployment that your employer forced you to quit by reducing the compensation past an acceptable level, and that's the same as firing you (I think that percentage may vary by state).

This statement here I don't hear too much about. It must be different elsewhere because here it is illegal to take a persons wages without just cause. And those causes usually have something to do with government.

 

Employers HAVE to call health insurance a benefit so it doesn't get taxed like wages.

And if it did get taxed like wages, do you think there would be as many employers providing it? It is ther choice, and the incentive is there for them to provide it. Well...it is for now anyway.

[iNow]

I think you hit the nail on the head here Phi. I think we were talking about the same thing, just in two different ways. You see this compensation as something that should be decided by the employee, while I see this compensation as what it is. "Dictated by the employer." If an employee doesn't like their benifits then they can always find a better place of employment.

Why should access to healthcare to any human beings experiencing a time of need, when they are ill, or suffer some sort of accident be so directly tied to their ability to be employed by a high-end quality employer with a good benefits package? Are the lesser educated members of our society less worthy of receiving quality care? Are the unfortunate who have been laid off through no fault of their own no longer worthy of having access to medicine and doctors without bankrupting themselves?

 

You mention how people can just "switch jobs if they don't like their medical coverage," but in your haste I feel you are ignoring just how impractical and difficult that truly is... Especially during an economy such as ours where millions of hard working, dedicated, and ambitious people are out of work while businesses slowly begin to recover. I hope you can understand how this approach and idealistic argument you're making leads directly to an implicit caste system wherein only the wealthy, the fortunate, and those who happen to have secured a good job can truly benefit from the healthcare that saves lives and minimizes suffering.

 

If I work at Burger King to pay my bills and put food on the table for my kids, am I somehow less worthy of healthcare than the single guy who works in a major corporation? You honestly believe that the BK employee can simply say, "Yep, I've had about enough of this. I think I will start working at IBM tomorrow?" Come on, man. You have to reconnect your arguments to reality and be more practical than that. The only way this works is to provide healthcare for every citizen regardless of class or life position or "luck of the draw," and the amazing thing is that doing so actually brings down the per person costs for all of us.

 

Whether you inherit generations of wealth from your family, managed to afford a quality education and land a good job, bust your ass working three jobs all with no benefits, or simply cannot or do not work for whatever reason... Healthcare is too important to all of us biologically, economically, and morally to continue avoiding the improvements we've seen made in so many other nations already.

[imatfaal]

Prequel: This post is bit off-topic from the discussion of how far the religious right intends to go with respect to birth control, but it is right on-topic with respect to how far the religious right intend to go in general. Mods, please feel free to move this to a new topic if it is too far off-topic.

 

 

Reining in birth control, reversing the sexual revolution, and putting women back in their "proper" place ("barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen") are but part of the overall religious right agenda. Another aspect is education. Teach creationism? Nope, it's unconstitutional. Teach cdesign propentism intelligent design? Nope, that too is unconstitutional. The latest twist is educational freedom. Teach the controversy! (And if a controversy doesn't exist, create one.) Louisiana has its academic freedom law, Tennessee has a bill going to the governor, and other states are following suit.

 

The Tennessee bill:

http://www.capitol.t...Bill/SB0893.pdf

 

Hearing (youtube) (Warning: The nine minute mark and beyond may make your blood boil):

http://youtu.be/tJD59bzg90w

 

I made it to 13 minutes before my colleagues started complaining about the language I was using about certain Tennessee politicians. From a UK perspective it is hard to believe that a lawmaker's committee would talk like this - or more towards this form of legislation. In some countries I would envisage scenes like this, but America? the heartland of the liberal sexual revolution, intellectual world heavyweight, the country of separation of church from state...and yet. Truly depressing and worrying.

 

Regarding the OP: apparently the Virginia bill will be amended not to require the invasive transvaginal ultrasound (though ultrasound is still required). I was not aware that e.g. Idaho and Texas already had such bills My link.

 

Technically the invasive option is not mandated per se, but since they are required to visualize the heartbeat, it is almost inevitable to do so during early stages of pregnancy.

 

Also this makes me wish that it is all only a hoax: My link (the website with the full article appears to be down).

 

 

 

At this point I would like to mandate some invasive for everyone before being to allowed to write and pass such laws.

 

Thankfully Virginia has drawn back on the physical invasion - if not the state imposition of mental anguish. I understand your point about the hoax entirely - before I wrote the op I read and reread articles as I was sure that I must have the wrong end of the stick ..."surely they cannot seriously be suggesting that" . Doonsbury was remarkable cutting on this point - revisiting abortion for the first time in decades The Slate Doonesbury 12th through to the 17th . I think even that is symptomatic of a retrogression in the political world - we are debating items that many considered settled 30/40/50 years ago.

[swansont]

I guess I'm just not saying it correctly. I'm at a complete loss as to why an educated guy like yourself can't see his health insurance as part of his pay.

 

…

 

Do you think it's a gift because they call them "fringe" benefits? Or just because they call them "benefits"? Hell, when my car insurance company deducts the amount they'll pay for worn parts damaged in a collision, they call it a "betterment"! It's just a way to make things sound nicer. Employers HAVE to call health insurance a benefit so it doesn't get taxed like wages.

 

 

Bingo. Employers provide health insurance rather than the cash equivalent because it's a tax break for both the employer and employee (and of course the benefit is greater if you are in a higher marginal bracket, but that's another topic) But I doubt anyone would try and assert that an employer has the right to tell you what you spend your wages/salary on, even under the guise of religious freedom. If they tried, they'd wind up in court. Your religious freedom covers only your private beliefs and actions. I don't see how I can refuse to pay you, or hire you, just because you might go buy a condom, or a ham sandwich, or a beer, or porn with your money, despite my moral beliefs.

[Phi for All]

Bingo. Employers provide health insurance rather than the cash equivalent because it's a tax break for both the employer and employee (and of course the benefit is greater if you are in a higher marginal bracket, but that's another topic) But I doubt anyone would try and assert that an employer has the right to tell you what you spend your wages/salary on, even under the guise of religious freedom. If they tried, they'd wind up in court. Your religious freedom covers only your private beliefs and actions. I don't see how I can refuse to pay you, or hire you, just because you might go buy a condom, or a ham sandwich, or a beer, or porn with your money, despite my moral beliefs.

Thanks. I've said this same thing half a dozen different ways now to no avail. I suspect I've been accidentally speaking Greek and someone forgot his Babel Fish.

 

There are some companies that give "gifts" to their employees. Free coffee, an employee picnic, a Christmas party maybe. The way to tell if it's a gift or not is to check your employment contract. When it's in writing, like a paid parking permit or your medical insurance benefits, it's not a gift.

[JustinW]

iNow,

 

Why should access to healthcare to any human beings experiencing a time of need, when they are ill, or suffer some sort of accident be so directly tied to their ability to be employed by a high-end quality employer with a good benefits package? Are the lesser educated members of our society less worthy of receiving quality care? Are the unfortunate who have been laid off through no fault of their own no longer worthy of having access to medicine and doctors without bankrupting themselves?

Your moral imperative really doesn't move me all that much. I think you need to read back in the thread to understand what we are talking about. Or you can transition this comment onto the other thread where it's more relevant.

 

 

You mention how people can just "switch jobs if they don't like their medical coverage,"

When did I say this? I will have to admit, it sounds pretty easy when I say it though doesn't it? You're going to have to refresh my memory here, I've looked back several pages and couldn't find where I've said this.

 

If I work at Burger King to pay my bills and put food on the table for my kids, am I somehow less worthy of healthcare than the single guy who works in a major corporation? You honestly believe that the BK employee can simply say, "Yep, I've had about enough of this. I think I will start working at IBM tomorrow?" Come on, man. You have to reconnect your arguments to reality and be more practical than that. The only way this works is to provide healthcare for every citizen regardless of class or life position or "luck of the draw," and the amazing thing is that doing so actually brings down the per person costs for all of us.

 

Are you sure you're in the right thread? Maybe you meant to post on the other one. I don't know where this fits in with an employer deciding what coverage to provide.

 

 

 

Swansont and Phi,

 

Employers provide health insurance rather than the cash equivalent because it's a tax break for both the employer and employee

This is really where I need to remember my Babel Fish. If an employer were to drop an employees health insurance would they be required to pay that employee the equivalent of the money they were paying in for that insurance? If not I don't see how you can consider it the employees money. That is my point and maybe I haven't been saying it right.

[Phi for All]

If an employer were to drop an employees health insurance would they be required to pay that employee the equivalent of the money they were paying in for that insurance? If not I don't see how you can consider it the employees money. That is my point and maybe I haven't been saying it right.

If insurance was part of your employment contract, your employer would be in breach if he tried to drop it. If your contract was up for renewal, and your employer tried to remove it, wouldn't you negotiate for more wages to cover the costs?

 

I'll try this one last time. What is it about the major US employers that makes you think they're so generous as to give such an expensive "gift" to all their employees? Why didn't the bean-counters talk them into dropping such an obvious "gift" along with less expensive "gifts" like Christmas bonuses and birthday lunches?

[iNow]

Your moral imperative really doesn't move me all that much.

Apparently, neither do facts, economics, enhancements in efficiency, reductions in cost, and the enabling of freedom to the greatest number.

 

 

You mention how people can just "switch jobs if they don't like their medical coverage," but in your haste I feel you are ignoring just how impractical and difficult that truly is... Especially during an economy such as ours where millions of hard working, dedicated, and ambitious people are out of work while businesses slowly begin to recover. I hope you can understand how this approach and idealistic argument you're making leads directly to an implicit caste system wherein only the wealthy, the fortunate, and those who happen to have secured a good job can truly benefit from the healthcare that saves lives and minimizes suffering.

When did I say this? I will have to admit, it sounds pretty easy when I say it though doesn't it? You're going to have to refresh my memory here, I've looked back several pages and couldn't find where I've said this.

Glad to. It was in the post to which I was responding:

 

If an employee doesn't like their benifits then they can always find a better place of employment.

[JustinW]

If insurance was part of your employment contract, your employer would be in breach if he tried to drop it. If your contract was up for renewal, and your employer tried to remove it, wouldn't you negotiate for more wages to cover the costs?

 

And how many people hire on under an employment contract? It doesn't apply the way you're trying to argue it. If we are talking about employment contracts then I would agree with you, but we're not. We are talking about regular everyday employment benifits.

 

 

What is it about the major US employers that makes you think they're so generous as to give such an expensive "gift" to all their employees?

The incentives they recieve for doing so. What else? I'm not saying they do it out of the kindness of their hearts, even though I would say that an employer may be glad that they can do so.

 

iNow,

 

Glad to. It was in the post to which I was responding:

 

Ah touche, I stand corrected. I think why I didn't recall saying it was because I was thinking of it in a different context. I think I was referring to it as a way to increase competition in the job market from an employers prospective. Rather than deciding to up and quit due to benifit provisions. But yet I concede to your point.

 

 

Apparently, neither do facts, economics, enhancements in efficiency, reductions in cost, and the enabling of freedom to the greatest number.

Again you're in the wrong thread. We're not talking about overall healthcare, we're talking about what decisions an employer can make about the insurance they provide for their employees.

[iNow]

Employer benefits are part of Comp. The employer cannot dictate how I use my comp. They can determine with which healthcare providers they will contract to offer services to employees, but they cannot decide what those providers offer to the insured. Those providers must follow the law and adhere to the regulations for their industry. Those regulations have been updated to include preventative medicine for females. The employer is welcome to drop all coverage offerings, but not to pick and choose a la carte which benefits the benefit provider will cover under the law.

 

This seems so painfully obvious and self-evident, I frankly got bored and that's why I moved the conversation topic a bit.

[JustinW]

iNow,

 

They can determine with which healthcare providers they will contract to offer services to employees, but they cannot decide what those providers offer to the insured. Those providers must follow the law and adhere to the regulations for their industry. Those regulations have been updated to include preventative medicine for females. The employer is welcome to drop all coverage offerings, but not to pick and choose a la carte which benefits the benefit provider will cover under the law.

Hence the words NEW LAW.