Immanuel
Gold Member
- May 15, 2007
- 16,828
- 2,269
- 183
immieThis is changing due to the ACA. Every employee gets covered or the company pays a fine. The Catholic Church does not have to provide contraceptive coverage for priests and nuns and pedophiles, but does have to provide the coverage for lay employees. They have been for decades.
The controversy is they would not allow university students to have insurance that covered contraception...even if their parents or they themselves bought it.
Banning contraceptive coverage for college age people is not allowed under the ACA. Students can bring their own or purchase that which is equivalent to wwhat Catholic
employees are offered.
That is it- just extend to students what employees have. Hugest priestly pissy fits over that.
Regards from Rosie
It is not up to you to tell the church, a university or even a private business what and who it must cover.
If the church is unwilling to subsidize students wanton sex lives, it is not required to or at least it should not be required to do so, but then Pelosi and Reid believe they are gods and have the right to dictate to others what should be done.
Immie
if a Jehovah witness who owned a shop and refused to carry insurance policies for his employees that cover blood transfusions would that be okay because carrying this coverage is against his religion???
The insurance coverage is the employee's compensation is it not?
And if the employee is paying for a third or half of the cost of the coverage is it still okay for the employer to refuse it just because it breaks their beliefs?
Why should an employer get to choose what to do with an employee's compensation? Wouldn't that be infringing on the employee's rights?
if a Jehovah witness who owned a shop and refused to carry insurance policies for his employees that cover blood transfusions would that be okay because carrying this coverage is against his religion???
Yes, if a JW owns a business and decides to offer health insurance to lure employees to work for her, she has every right to purchase a health insurance policy that does not provide for blood transfusions. Note the word "offer"! An employer offers benefits, employees do not "demand" benefits. The employer offers those benefits in order to tempt employees to work for them. If John Smith applies for the job offered by a JW employer and that job provides health insurance that does not include blood transfusions, then John Smith is free to look elsewhere for employment.
BTW: that is the crux of the matter. Too many people think that the employee has not only a right to the job but a right to demand his/her wages and benefits. It doesn't work that way. The employer offers wages/benefits to entice people to work for them. If they are not offering enough then no one works for them and they must raise the offer. Too many liberals have the entitlement (read that as socialistic) philosophy that says, "it is the employer's responsibility to provide living wages or better". That is simply not the case. The employer offers wages/benefits; if those wages/benefits are inadequate the prospective employee is free to seek employment elsewhere.
Yes, offered (there is that word again) by the employer. Don't like what your employer offers, go elsewhere. In today's economy that is difficult... blame the Democrats and liberal politicians who have made anti-corporatism a way of life and the cost of providing employment outrageously expensive.The insurance coverage is the employee's compensation is it not?
And if the employee is paying for a third or half of the cost of the coverage is it still okay for the employer to refuse it just because it breaks their beliefs?
Yes, it is still okay for the employer to refuse to offer certain objectionable policies. In fact, until the anti-business progressive Democrats passed Obamacare, it was the legal right (and should still be so) of employers not to offer health insurance at all. There is no moral obligation for an employer to do so. Employers offer (there is that word again) it in order to entice good employees. The benefit to employees is that a) employers generally subsidize at least a portion of the policy and b) employers get "group" rates on policies meaning that an employee's policy would be more expensive if he/she had to purchase their own.
Still, it is a BENEFIT not a moral obligation.
Why should an employer get to choose what to do with an employee's compensation?
So, with this statement, I assume you believe that a prospective employee at Walmart has the right to set her own wages when Walmart offers her a job. The conversation in your thinking must be like this:
Manager: "Ms. Jones, Walmart number 222543 would be pleased to have you work as a cashier at our store".
Ms. Jones: "Wonderful, I will start a week from next Monday. My wages will be $25.75 per hour. I get four weeks of paid vacation starting the first year increasing to six weeks after two years of service. You will provide a health insurance policy, fully covered by the employer, that provides for contraceptive coverage because my oldest daughter is 10 and I am not ready to be a grandma. You will provide a 401(K) plan in which you will match my contributions up to $25,000 per year. You will contribute to my children's college fund $10,000 per year each child (there are seven currently and one due in May), I get holidays off paid; Christian, Jewish and Islamic holidays as well as Kwanza, my birthday and the birthdays of each child as well as the birthday of which ever man I deem to allow to live with me at any given time. I can't think of anything else at the moment, but I will inform you should I think of something else and I expect you to honor the obligation to provide any future benefits I deem appropriate."
Manager: "Great, we will see you a week from Monday".
In effect, that is what you are stating.
Now, if you were an employer, hiring employees would that be the way you went about it? When you were in the working world, is that how you accepted a position or was it the other way around:
Manager: "Ms Jones, Walmart 222543 would be pleased to offer you a position as cashier at..."
Wouldn't that be infringing on the employee's rights?
No, what rights? The employee doesn't have the right to demand a job let alone her compensation. She accepts or rejects the offer presented to her. Hell, if I had the right to demand my job, I would be playing starting quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers right now!
Now, if we allow the anti-business politicians in Washington to continue in the direction that they are going things may change, but that would clearly be for the worse.
Immie
Last edited: