Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 10
Topic: Just when you think... (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Conner Dinkins
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 March 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 832
Posted: 11 July 2014 at 2:27pm | IP Logged | 1  
I've been reading this whole thread and having discussions about this in the real world and I wanted to respond.
---
B, the employees, should be able to choose what level of coverage etc they get. It's between them and the insurer. A, the employer, pays part of that insurance but should not be able to have a say what is offered. 

Except, now they do.
---
They always have.

I've never worked anywhere where the employees get to choose what level of coverage they get. Maybe it's different here in the south but some plans have no vision, some no dental, and if you want those things you either opt out and get your own insurance or get the company insurance and live without those things and pay out of pocket for them.
The employer has every right to choose what plans they want to use for their employees. If the employees want things not provided they can opt out or get the plan and pay out of pocket. The government shouldn't be able to make companies choose their plan only. And they still can't according to this decision.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5833
Posted: 11 July 2014 at 2:53pm | IP Logged | 2  
CONNOR: I've never worked anywhere where the employees
get to choose what level of coverage they get. Maybe it's
different here in the south but some plans have no
vision, some no dental, and if you want those things you
either opt out and get your own insurance or get the
company insurance and live without those things and pay
out of pocket for them.
The employer has every right to choose what plans they
want to use for their employees. If the employees want
things not provided they can opt out or get the plan and
pay out of pocket. The government shouldn't be able to
make companies choose their plan only. And they still
can't according to this decision.

SER: My understanding and experience has been that
companies made decisions regarding what coverage was
offered to employees based on *economic* reasons. A
company doesn't offer vision because of the cost not
because of any philosophical opposition to vision
coverage or belief that offering it compromises the
company morally. The closest analogy I could make would
be if the company I work for doesn't offer comprehensive
psychological treatment or antidepressive medication
because of the cost as opposed to the company being run
by devout Scientologists and not agreeing with modern
psychology.

I understand that some might see no distinction here, but
practically, limited coverage for financial reasons is
somewhat objective (money is money regardless of
religion) and the coverage can always be improved once
the financial status improves.

The other issue I don't think has been mentioned is that
employees could see their coverage alter if a company is
purchased by someone else. So, now I'm working for
scientologists and my medication is no longer covered,
and so on.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Conner Dinkins
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 March 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 832
Posted: 11 July 2014 at 4:35pm | IP Logged | 3  
SER: My understanding and experience has been that
companies made decisions regarding what coverage was
offered to employees based on *economic* reasons. A
company doesn't offer vision because of the cost not
because of any philosophical opposition to vision
coverage or belief that offering it compromises the
company morally.
---
But shouldn't they be able to? Shouldn't any private business be able to discriminate in support of things they are morally convicted are wrong? The Hobby Lobby people believe abortion is murder and don't want to do anything that supports it. Regardless of whether you agree with them, shouldn't they be able to not support a health care plan with abortion in it?

JB says that abortion is "justifiable homicide" the Hobby Lobby people don't believe there is a justification and it's just homicide. If you believed that it was murder would you want to support it in any way. I'm supposing you don't but if you did would you want the government to force you to support it?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Steven Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5732
Posted: 11 July 2014 at 6:30pm | IP Logged | 4  
It used to be employers could offer any and all or none health insurance. "Obamacare" created a legal minimum, as well as a requirement that everyone get covered.

It's supposed to work like this: the Insurance companies now have to cover everyone, but they get more customers because now everyone is a customer. That way, the companies stay in business and everyone get insurance. Everyone wins!
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14921
Posted: 11 July 2014 at 6:47pm | IP Logged | 5  
Shouldn't any private business be able to discriminate in support of things they are morally convicted are wrong?

-----

Nope. There are laws which say that businesses that provide "public accommodations" cannot discriminate with regard to certain things. There are people who feel miscegenation is morally wrong. That would not protect them from refusing services to a mixed-race couple. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5833
Posted: 11 July 2014 at 8:25pm | IP Logged | 6  
JB says that abortion is "justifiable homicide" the Hobby Lobby people
don't believe there is a justification and it's just homicide. If you
believed that it was murder would you want to support it in any way. I'm
supposing you don't but if you did would you want the government to
force you to support it?

*****

SER: There is a difference between morality and the law. I can believe
abortion is a sin but I can't claim it is "murder" or "homicide" because
those terms have legal definitions (for instance, newspapers refer to
someone as being slain until there has been a conviction of murder.)

Abortion is legal. It is not a crime. This means you can rail against it
morally but you can't treat it as a crime. This is why an employer can
legally require you to disclose any criminal convictions but not ask you
if you've had an abortion.

Until the law changes, abortion is a medical procedure. It should be
viewed like having blood transfusions or taking antidepressant, both of
which are considered abominations within specific religions.

I tend to think we're better off all around when businesses don't inject
religion into their operating procedures. When my wife and I rented a
house, we only had to worry about our finances or our records not
whether someone would object to us living together out of wedlock and
later our being an interracial couple.

Religious freedom as some define is Russian Roulette, eventually
Christians will find themselves "persecuted." We are supposedly
fighting against radical islam for this reason.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 

Sorry, you can NOT post a reply.
This topic is closed.

<< Prev Page of 10
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login