I’d really like to hear FReeper’s take on Ruthie’s fear that this will open up refusals by various religiously oriented businesses - Jehovah’s Witness ( Blood transfusion ), Christian Scientist (Vaccinations), etc.
My personal take is this -— Businesses are not in the business of providing for healthcare. If they don’t provide what you want, you are NOT OBLIGATED to work for them.
That is how a free country should work.
What is your take?
What’s with the left’s assumptive argument that people can’t choose whom they work for?
I guess they’re just looking “forward” to their utopia where you DON’T choose where to work, it’s chosen for you.
Thanks for that - didn’t realize that group still didn’t like vaccines.
But to answer your question: if (a) they have a bona fide ‘religion’ - at least one recognized by the government and not just “Bob’s Cults and Koolaid Parlor”, and one of their beliefs is “no vaccines”, then yeah - that should be honored... in the same way that Amish and Muslims were opted out in the original piece-of-trash legislation.
That's true but we don't want businesses to abandon health insurance as a perk altogether. If they did then all health care would be through government programs, which would bring the controversial benefits right back in again.
I just got into a heated discussion in FB on this very topic and you succinctly stated my exact contention. Directive 10-289 is still fiction (so far) and no one is compelled to work for an employer whose benefits they deem insufficient; likewise, no employer is compelled to retain a dissatisfied employee who doesn't perform the work s/he is employed to do (and employment contracts can be broken). I'm in 100% agreement with you.
I agree with that. I don't think anyone should be compelled to pay for anyone's anything, except for national defense and police force and so on, "public goods." Private pay or private charity for almost everything else.
In the case of medical insurance, a useful question is, "Does this treat or prevent an injury or an illness?" Blood transfusion treats an injury. Vaccination prevents an illness.
Birth control pills may be used to treat reproductive pathologies, but they are rarely the best choice of treatment, merely the easiest.
You're exactly right. And that notion should be the centerpiece for why the employer mandate (which Obama has kicked down the road until after the elections) is unconstitutional in addition to it being a bad idea in its own right.
Our Founders would’ve found leftist arguments that the government needs to be paying for baby murder completely insane.
The leftist position is THEIR secular religious beliefs trump our Christian beliefs. F&$% them and the horse they rode in on.
All this idiocy can be traced back to Congress expanding “interstate commerce” to its current lunacy, and the courts finding “separation of church and state” where it doesn’t exist.
Wasn't there a feminist slogan that said "Keep your laws off my body"?
Yeah...
I worked in the kitchen at a 7th Day Adventist owned hospital when I was in college. They are vegetarians and the food served to all patients and in the cafeteria adhered to that. So I went out for lunch.
“I’d really like to hear FReeper’s take on Ruthie’s fear that this will open up refusals by various religiously oriented businesses - Jehovah’s Witness ( Blood transfusion ), Christian Scientist (Vaccinations), etc.
My personal take is this -— Businesses are not in the business of providing for healthcare. If they don’t provide what you want, you are NOT OBLIGATED to work for them.”
I agree with you with the following addendum: What I require from a business I work for is a paycheck. Healthcare subsidies are fine, and I’ll take them if offered, but I’d rather get a full paycheck with as little taken out as possible and a free and open insurance system that allows me to make informed choices about my specific needs instead of requiring a catch-all system. Insurance is a complicated business, and non-insurance companies shouldn’t be required to engage in it.