Should employers be allowed to decide ALL medicines you can take and not just some?

[Derideo_Te]

contraception is NOT medical decision.

It is lifestyle decision.

Not if you are using birth control to control your own health - not for borth control.

it does not matter. you can pay for it yourself. it is not that expensive.

employers can actually bypass this provision pretty easily - just giving the option where only CERTAIN medications have some coverage and not covering anything else.
Insurance plans differ and it is actually employer who decides what is in your insurance.

The ACA requires all insurance to contain certain minimum requirements. Employers cannot dictate what they don't want to cover because of personal religious beliefs.

 

[dblack]

If the employer provided insurance or lack there of is a deal breaker, then don't work for that employer. Employment should be a contract between an employer and employee. If both parties can agree on the particulars of an employment contract, great! If not, then don't work for that employer. Seems pretty simple to me. And the benefits contract should be none of the government's business.

Just like the working conditions "should be none of the government's business" either?

Yes.

The lack of healthcare provided by employers is costing taxpayers billions of dollars so that it why it has become We the People's business.

hmm... so is 'lack of healthcare provided by friends and relatives'. Why not go after them?

 

[Derideo_Te]

If the employer provided insurance or lack there of is a deal breaker, then don't work for that employer. Employment should be a contract between an employer and employee. If both parties can agree on the particulars of an employment contract, great! If not, then don't work for that employer. Seems pretty simple to me. And the benefits contract should be none of the government's business.

Just like the working conditions "should be none of the government's business" either?

Yes.

The lack of healthcare provided by employers is costing taxpayers billions of dollars so that it why it has become We the People's business.

hmm... so is 'lack of healthcare provided by friends and relatives'. Why not go after them?

So you are in favor of dangerous working conditions and child labor?

 

[dblack]

Just like the working conditions "should be none of the government's business" either?

Yes.

The lack of healthcare provided by employers is costing taxpayers billions of dollars so that it why it has become We the People's business.

hmm... so is 'lack of healthcare provided by friends and relatives'. Why not go after them?

So you are in favor of dangerous working conditions and child labor?

Is that the false dilemma that's blocking you?

 

[dblack]

Yes.



hmm... so is 'lack of healthcare provided by friends and relatives'. Why not go after them?

So you are in favor of dangerous working conditions and child labor?

Is that the false dilemma that's blocking you?

Seriously. That same silly charge is leveled against anyone who doubts the need for government to protect us from our own poor decisions. It's the same story in the drug war, where anyone doubts who doubts prohibition policy is accused of being in favor of drug abuse. Let's look for some more worthwhile arguments, eh?

 

[Derideo_Te]

So you are in favor of dangerous working conditions and child labor?

Is that the false dilemma that's blocking you?

Seriously. That same silly charge is leveled against anyone who doubts the need for government to protect us from our own poor decisions. It's the same story in the drug war, where anyone doubts who doubts prohibition policy is accused of being in favor of drug abuse. Let's look for some more worthwhile arguments, eh?

So now you are equating the overreach of the "war on drugs" to safe working conditions? I suggest that you take your own advice and find some worthwhile arguments as to why We the People should not be in favor of safe working conditions.

 

[dblack]

Is that the false dilemma that's blocking you?

Seriously. That same silly charge is leveled against anyone who doubts the need for government to protect us from our own poor decisions. It's the same story in the drug war, where anyone doubts who doubts prohibition policy is accused of being in favor of drug abuse. Let's look for some more worthwhile arguments, eh?

So now you are equating the overreach of the "war on drugs" to safe working conditions?

No, I'm saying you're making the same stupid argument that's often used there: the presumption that opposing government intervention is the same as supporting whatever problem is under consideration. It's not.

Getting back to the point of my post, why should we hold employers any more responsible for our health care than any of the other members of our community? If I hire someone to mow my lawn, must I assume responsibility for their health care?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Seriously. That same silly charge is leveled against anyone who doubts the need for government to protect us from our own poor decisions. It's the same story in the drug war, where anyone doubts who doubts prohibition policy is accused of being in favor of drug abuse. Let's look for some more worthwhile arguments, eh?

So now you are equating the overreach of the "war on drugs" to safe working conditions?

No, I'm saying you're making the same stupid argument that's often used there: the presumption that opposing government intervention is the same as supporting whatever problem is under consideration. It's not.

Getting back to the point of my post, why should we hold employers any more responsible for our health care than any of the other members of our community? If I hire someone to mow my lawn, must I assume responsibility for their health care?

So you have conceded that you are wrong about government regulating safe working conditions.

The concept of holding employers responsible is a GOP position that is primarily based upon the broken "for profit" healthcare system that was already failing. That this was the plan that was allowed to be passed as the ACA is merely a stepping stone. We the People are responsible for our own Welfare and so We the People need to do this in the most cost effective manner possible. That would be Universal healthcare and until we are willing to stop screeching utter nonsense about "socialized medicine" and deal with it the situation will continue to cost taxpayers far more then necessary. As a fiscal conservative that is the only logical position to adopt.

 

[dblack]

So now you are equating the overreach of the "war on drugs" to safe working conditions?

No, I'm saying you're making the same stupid argument that's often used there: the presumption that opposing government intervention is the same as supporting whatever problem is under consideration. It's not.

Getting back to the point of my post, why should we hold employers any more responsible for our health care than any of the other members of our community? If I hire someone to mow my lawn, must I assume responsibility for their health care?

So you have conceded that you are wrong about government regulating safe working conditions.

No, where did you get that inane idea? It simply isn't on topic. If you want to start a thread about labor law, have at it.

The concept of holding employers responsible is a GOP position that is primarily based upon the broken "for profit" healthcare system that was already failing. That this was the plan that was allowed to be passed as the ACA is merely a stepping stone. We the People are responsible for our own Welfare and so We the People need to do this in the most cost effective manner possible. That would be Universal healthcare and until we are willing to stop screeching utter nonsense about "socialized medicine" and deal with it the situation will continue to cost taxpayers far more then necessary. As a fiscal conservative that is the only logical position to adopt.

It's funny, your use of the 'We the People' phrase as a euphemism for government dictating behavior. Is the irony intentional?

Anyway, there are many other logical positions outside the false dilemma you've constructed.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, I'm saying you're making the same stupid argument that's often used there: the presumption that opposing government intervention is the same as supporting whatever problem is under consideration. It's not.

Getting back to the point of my post, why should we hold employers any more responsible for our health care than any of the other members of our community? If I hire someone to mow my lawn, must I assume responsibility for their health care?

So you have conceded that you are wrong about government regulating safe working conditions.

No, where did you get that inane idea? It simply isn't on topic. If you want to start a thread about labor law, have at it.

The concept of holding employers responsible is a GOP position that is primarily based upon the broken "for profit" healthcare system that was already failing. That this was the plan that was allowed to be passed as the ACA is merely a stepping stone. We the People are responsible for our own Welfare and so We the People need to do this in the most cost effective manner possible. That would be Universal healthcare and until we are willing to stop screeching utter nonsense about "socialized medicine" and deal with it the situation will continue to cost taxpayers far more then necessary. As a fiscal conservative that is the only logical position to adopt.

It's funny, your use of the 'We the People' phrase as a euphemism for government dictating behavior. Is the irony intentional?

Anyway, there are many other logical positions outside the false dilemma you've constructed.

So now you deny the founding documents and principle behind this nation and you accuse others of inanity and falsehoods.

Unless you can refute the fact that We the People are the government and stick to logical reasoned arguments there is no further point to responding to your posts. Have a nice day.

 

[dblack]

So you have conceded that you are wrong about government regulating safe working conditions.

No, where did you get that inane idea? It simply isn't on topic. If you want to start a thread about labor law, have at it.

The concept of holding employers responsible is a GOP position that is primarily based upon the broken "for profit" healthcare system that was already failing. That this was the plan that was allowed to be passed as the ACA is merely a stepping stone. We the People are responsible for our own Welfare and so We the People need to do this in the most cost effective manner possible. That would be Universal healthcare and until we are willing to stop screeching utter nonsense about "socialized medicine" and deal with it the situation will continue to cost taxpayers far more then necessary. As a fiscal conservative that is the only logical position to adopt.

It's funny, your use of the 'We the People' phrase as a euphemism for government dictating behavior. Is the irony intentional?

Anyway, there are many other logical positions outside the false dilemma you've constructed.

So now you deny the founding documents and principle behind this nation and you accuse others of inanity and falsehoods.

Unless you can refute the fact that We the People are the government and stick to logical reasoned arguments there is no further point to responding to your posts. Have a nice day.

And a good weekend to you as well!

 

[Politico]

And Sandra Fluke should always have to pay for her own BC...

Why?

My insurance company paid for my vasectomy

A vasectomy is not medicine, it's surgery.

And in this case was a public service.

I'll be here all week....