Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="inactive" data-source="post: 1987196" data-attributes="member: 7488">Except that it was more complicated than that.&nbsp; Fluke&#039;s request for contraception was in the context that insurance people receive through their employer, as a benefit or by paying the group rate, should not exclude contraception even if the religious nature of the organization disapproves of it.&nbsp; My insurance which covers my wife pays for hers, but I don&#039;t think of it as &quot;free&quot; as I and my employer are paying a damn premium to cover these expenses.&nbsp; From an insurance perspective, &quot;Free&quot; is a bit of a misnomer in all of this.&nbsp; &quot;Included&quot; would be a better term.The idea that someone else should buy her birth control was not even part of the argument until the radio host made his infamous, out of context gaffe.&nbsp; To this point, I think the employers should be able to include that if they want; it&#039;s they&#039;re prerogative.&nbsp; Employees can seek work or benefits elsewhere if they disagree.&nbsp; That said, to say that somehow society on the whole is going to see that individual expense as an entitlement is unfair, as the employees and/or employer are paying for the insurance premium.&nbsp; From a cost stand point, insurers will sure as shinola cover (or even absorb, if they cannot charge explicitly different premiums for including it) contraception as it&#039;s much cheaper than the costs of birth and health care for infants.&nbsp; The only objection to their paying was the ethical concerns of the groups involved.&nbsp; The GOP pundit tried to make a moocher argument when there was none.&nbsp; Make it a religious rights argument if you feel it&#039;s worthy of arguing at all.&nbsp; Like g2g said, they don&#039;t get it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="inactive, post: 1987196, member: 7488"] Except that it was more complicated than that. Fluke's request for contraception was in the context that insurance people receive through their employer, [B]as a benefit or by paying the group rate[/B], should not exclude contraception even if the religious nature of the organization disapproves of it. My insurance which covers my wife pays for hers, but I don't think of it as "free" as I and my employer are paying a damn premium to cover these expenses. From an insurance perspective, "Free" is a bit of a misnomer in all of this. "Included" would be a better term. The idea that someone else should buy her birth control was not even part of the argument until the radio host made his infamous, out of context gaffe. To this point, I think the employers should be able to include that if they want; it's they're prerogative. Employees can seek work or benefits elsewhere if they disagree. That said, to say that somehow society on the whole is going to see that individual expense as an entitlement is unfair, as the employees and/or employer are paying for the insurance premium. From a cost stand point, insurers will sure as shinola cover (or even absorb, if they cannot charge explicitly different premiums for including it) contraception as it's much cheaper than the costs of birth and health care for infants. The only objection to their paying was the ethical concerns of the groups involved. The GOP pundit tried to make a moocher argument when there was none. Make it a religious rights argument if you feel it's worthy of arguing at all. Like g2g said, they don't get it. [/QUOTE]

Verification