<p>the way it would work in an entirely “free” market, Soccerguy, is that employers could require people to work 20 hour days, or they could only hire the “type of people” they want to hire. They could provide bathrooms or not, breaks or not. They could offer no maternity leave. They could employ illegal immigrants for 2 dollars an hour. They could fire you for reading things they didn’t agree with. They could require you to abide by a morals clause. they could do anything they wanted, including hire 10 year olds to work in the factory 14 hours a day.</p>
<p>We have rules to protect workers for a reason. Because the ‘free’ market you are talking about did all of those things, and not even an entire century ago. Not to mention locking factory workers into buildings. Lack of any kind of safety measures. sweat shops. </p>
<p>Look, the religiously affiliated organiziations in this country operate on a tremendous amount of taxpayer funding.</p>
<p>In the state of Illinois, when Catholic Charities refused to work with same sex couples for foster care and adoption, the state stopped paying them to facillitate these things, AND they referred the work to other agencies which had no “religious” issues with working with same sex couples. Catholic Charities sued the state of Illinois stating that they should be allowed to run these organizations AND impose their religious values on the participants. The main problem? They couldn’t even afford to fight a law suit because without money from the state, they couldn’t afford to sue the state for more money. They were almost entirely state funded. How is this okay?</p>
<p>These arguments are luducrous, for THAT reason. Can Georgetown or Notre Dame operate without federal financial aid, federal loan programs and federal grants? Maybe. But not the way they do now.</p>
<p>These organizations want to “have it both ways.”</p>
<p>You can’t scream separation of church and state every time it’s something you DONT want, and then go to the government and ask to be tax exempt and to recieve funding for your organizations when you DO.</p>
Y’know, dietz, I used to say that 90% of the things I learned about people came from my years as a Little League coach and league official. I don’t say that so much anymore, since it’s been a decade or so gone by, but your post really resonated with me.</p>
<p>You see, we always had guys who made that same sort of sarcastic, self-righteous blather about the stupid rules Little League imposed. (I guess the current catch phrase would be “rammed down our throats.”) There were always Dads who knew better than the stupid League. And they had some great rationalizations for why they shouldn’t have to follow the rules. </p>
<p>Two of our best ball players blew out their throwing arms because the adults in their lives “knew better” and didn’t think Little League rules needed to be followed. They were 11 and 13 when it happened.</p>
<p>In high school, at least one of my sons’ classmates on the football team took steroids. He was 18. </p>
<p>I have absolutely no doubt that there are hundreds of Dads out there who would not only allow, but encourage their sons to play football without a helmet if they thought it would give them a competitive advantage.</p>
<p>Yes, I do believe that we need to have and enforce rules to protect young people from the dumb things they - and their parents - will do if there weren’t rules against it.</p>
<p>Mom22039-I checke the last three policies that we had. Birth control was covered, abortion was covered, but in the last two weightloss surgery was not covered.</p>
<p>EK4, no she teaches in a non-union state for not very much money and even few benefits.</p>
<p>I always tell my kids to make me the ‘bad guy’ when they need to bow out of an undesirable behavior–"…my mom will kill me if I go there…" I think most employers need a ‘bad guy’ when it comes to providing benefits and granting rights to their employees. The almighty dollar just has too much magnetism unless they are required by law to do certain things.</p>
<p>Seems to me the bottom line is this: We need to decide where the rights of the employee ends and where the rights of the employer begins. I would never want to step on anyone’s religious toes as I firmly believe that is one hallmark that sets our country apart from others. Your faith (or lack thereof) is your faith–not my concern; I don’t get to vote on your faith. However, religion (yours, mine, the boss’, the president’s nor the senator’s ) has no role to play in health care and, by default, the insurance that pays for said care. That should be between patient and the provider.</p>
<p>I wonder how this dispute would have played out if the complaints had come from employers who didn’t want to cover blood transfusions for religious reasons?</p>
<p>Interesting point, Hunt. There are news articles all the time where children are taken away from parents that do not provide medical treatment because it is against their religion. Those people are called unfit parents.
Are these employers then “unfit” as well?</p>
<p>Or how about if the debate had started because an employer refused to provide coverage for diabetics, because it’s his “moral conviction” that diabetics is fully avoidable and fully treatable if you only eat right (I’ve heard my own boss state this belief).</p>
<p>I’m not joking at all. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are sinful. If a member of that particular faith runs a business, he might very well not want to pay for blood transfusions. I think this dispute would have been seen in a different light if that had been the spark.</p>
<p>This is true. On the online nursing forum that I visit, this subject comes up from time to time with JW nurses saying that they shouldn’t have to hang blood and other nurses debating about whether or not requiring another nurse to fulfill these nurses’ obligations in addition to their own is “fair” or not. These debates get very heated.</p>
<p>It’s possible to have a civil discussion about this. If we assume, for the sake of the discussion, there there is going to be a federal law telling employers that health plans must cover some minimum set of medical treatments, what should they be? And to what extent should the law accomodate religious scruples of the employers? I don’t think too many people would be comfortable with allowing employers to decline to cover necessary blood transfusions. Contraception is, obviously, a closer call. But, as a column I read the other day said, Rush essentially destroyed the sensible discussion of the topic–to the detriment of his own point of view. Go figure.</p>
<p>I agree. Blood transfusions may save peoples’ lives. Contraception doesn’t.</p>
<p>That is a big distinction. Its like comparing laws against murder to laws against consuming soft drinks.</p>
<p>Using prescription contraception is an optional practice. It is not the only way to prevent a pregnancy.</p>
<p>Much of the objection gets lost in the religious angle, but it is not just about religion. All government mandates that impinge upon private rights are political, but to different degrees. If this mandate had been about mandatory coverage for surgical cosmetic breast enlargement, you would hear a lot of debate, as well.</p>
<p>Drawing the line isn’t easy. What about acne treatment? What about treatment for hair loss? But if you’re going to set minimum standards, you do have to draw the line somewhere.</p>
<p>You can’t compare contraception, bcp, which actually DO have medical applications outside the realm of birth control, to breast augmentation surgery.</p>
<p>Or, you could say, in the case of radical mastectomy, should cosmetic surgery be covered?</p>
<p>Or, you could say, why cover blood pressure medication? I have no blood pressure issues, no family history of cancer, just death from old age in my family. There is dementia in the 90’s, or so. Should altzeimers medication be covered? It doesn’t even really work.</p>
<p>Should we cover end of life pain meds, which are just there to alleviate suffering, but do not save lives?</p>
<p>Should we cover medication for type 2 diabetics or only for type 1 diabetics who didn’t cause this for themselves?</p>
<p>Should we even insure obese people like Rush Limbaugh? Or, no?</p>
<p>I mean, I can’t really see how any of these things are different. </p>
<p>Actually, there’s no reason bcp should be only a prescription medication. Why not just sell it OTC?</p>
<p>Yes, you have to draw the line, and I’m quite certain the medical community could do it. Covering a proven treatment for a medical condition makes sense to me; contraception doesn’t fall into that category (except for PCOS, etc).</p>