rickyp wrote:They all limit an employers ability to do whatever the hell they want.

And the EEOC has ruled on this exact question, with the ruling being in place for over 11 years, yet it's only now that apparently it's a big issue.

danivon wrote:Again, I will point out that employer funded benefits to the employee belong to the employee, as part of their remuneration package. The do not belong to the employer.

You are absolutely right but I as the employer have the right to decide how much of a benefit I want to offer as part of that remuneration package.

rickyp wrote:How is minimum standards for health benefits different than other employment laws like minimum pay, maximum hours, working conditions etc.?
They all limit an employers ability to do whatever the hell they want.

Well when you have worked a job as wait staff making $2.25 an hour or a job that required mandatory overtime you accept them as non-existant.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:Again, I will point out that employer funded benefits to the employee belong to the employee, as part of their remuneration package. The do not belong to the employer.

You are absolutely right but I as the employer have the right to decide how much of a benefit I want to offer as part of that remuneration package.

Sure, subject to the law. Checked out the EEOC decision from 2000?

Here's the weird part, it is cheaper for insurance companies to provide women with contraception than it is to pay for the consequences. So technically the Catholic Church isn't going to be asked to pay more, they are being asked to pay less, essentially what they are being 'interfered' with is the ability to pay more for insurance that will facilitate unwanted pregnancies.

Don't the hospitals and universities that are Catholic affiliated get federal money? So in effect they essentially want to control the purpose of money derived from taxation on jews, protestants, hundus, atheists agnostics bhuddists and etc..
More importantly they want to break precedent. Where in 28 states Cartholic affiliated institutions toe the line, its only now that somehow a moral impasse. Thats very strange..

Some blogger described this situation this way....

"We WANT to control what our employees may and may not do in their private lives because our religious freedom is being stymied when we can't!" -- but it's not 'Catholics' who are pushing this. It's the Catholic hierarchy. The bishops weren't interested in preventing known child abuse from occuring but they sure do want to slap the contraceptives out of women's hands.

Thats not nuanced but it sure describes how a credibility challenged institution is viewed on womens issues...
And more than a matter of conscience, its a womans issue. A matter of conscience is the decision the woman makes as an individual. A matter of coercion is when the church decides to make that decison more difficult and more expensive only for its female employees...

Despite the deep divide between some religious leaders and government officials over contraceptives, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll found most voters support the new federal directive that health insurance plans provide coverage for birth control
On contraceptive coverage, 65 percent of voters in the poll said they supported the Obama administration’s requirement that health insurance plans cover the cost of birth control, and 59 percent, said the health insurance plans of religiously affiliated employers should cover the cost of birth control

A majority of Catholic voters in the poll were at odds with the church’s official stance, agreeing with most other voters that religiously affiliated employers should offer health insurance that provides contraception. Jennifer Davison, 38, a Catholic from Lomita, Calif., agrees with the federal requirement. “My opinion is that it is a personal issue rather than a religious issue,” she said

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/po ... .html?_r=1

Based on this, I'd say that Obama is pretty comfortable in his position.... And the catholic woman quoted in the last paragraph clearly demonstrates that she understands the difference between making a moral choice personal, and an instittuion making the choice for others... Since 98% of Catholic women use contraception at some point in their lives, its pretty clear that even members of the church aremn't taking the Bishops all that seriously.
Why then are many republicans?
It seems clear that with an improving economy and improving popularity of Obama the conservative republicans want to fight the election over social issues. where they clearly are the minority in most areas. Especially Santorum

Ah, but just because most Americans, and most Catholic Americans, think that individual rights are more important than the rights of employer to impose their 'morality' on religious grounds, doesn't mean that the Bishops and their right wing pals won't keep whining about this. Another few hundred thousand off the dole queue last month pretty much guarantees that the conservatives will suddenly forget all about the economy, and tell us how it's less important than the 'principle' that employers can try to control their employee's private decisions by the proxy of health insurance.

But since the Obama compromise was detailed, this thread went awful quiet. I suspect Brad and Russell are wise enough to realise that this was a storm in a teacup.

No, I just got sick and tired of trying to explain that there is availability in the US for these services. Not everything is needed to be provided. Some things people have to pay for themselves. It is not the employers responsibility to pay for them. To do otherwise is an infringement. Also, it would be an infringement to say that people are not allowed to have contraception available.

It doesn't matter that its "available". And, according to the legal minimum requirements for health insurance, "It is the employers responsibility". The Church afiliated institutions that hadn't complied (and an awful lot had, in some 28 states) are trying to be treated to a different standard. And only because of their espoused religion - not the religion of their employees.
They are clearly infringing on the freedom of their employees to make their own moral choices....
And clearly treating women differently then they are treated throughout the states, again because of their religion not the womens choices. These women are forced, because of a moral choice they don't support, to spend up to a $1,000 a year (or more) on contraceptives...
Be that as it may .... once again republicans are charging forward with social issues... That will condemn them to failure in November...
There 's an enormous gender gap of support between women and men in their support for republicans/Democrats...
Choosing to side with the Bishops and other moralizing religionists is going to drive women away... And they've already driven away most Blacks, Latinos and Gays and Lesbians.... I know the Venn diagrams overlap and none of this support is 100% (only mid 90s) but just winning these demos with the margins expected pretty much seals Obama's deal...
The guy is incredibly lucky. Economy is improving and the Republicans are settling for social isssues rather than economic...

noted. disagree

Brad, you seem to be arguing against the principle of the entire Act itself, rather than against the particular situation of whether to apply it to 'religious organisations' that aren't churches. Given that the healthcare reforms are in law, you are running over old ground, and trying to tie it to a moral question (and when you dragged in abortion you created a straw man).

I have tried to explain to you that you are equating the provision of something with the provision of insurance that covers it. The actual clause that the Bishops (and you) seem to have a problem with is this:

Here’s the services that have to be covered with no out-of-pocket cost to the employee:

Well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, HPV testing, STD counseling, HIV testing and counseling, breastfeeding support and supplies, contraception, and screening and counseling for domestic violence.

You think that those (or some of them) should not be provided at no cost to the employee, that because people have to pay for it now, it's cool to continue to make them have to, as long as it's potentially 'available'. Fair enough. You disagree with the healthcare reforms on a political level. It passed Congress and has not yet been struck down as unconstitutional by law.

However, I have also pointed you to two different precedents for this cover:

1) In December 2000, the EEOC ruled that employers that provide health insurance have to include such cover. With no religious or moral get-outs, and on the basis of the Civil Rights Act barring sexual discrimination.

2) In 28 States, there already is such a mandate, in 20 of them there is no religious waiver at all, and many Catholic-run institutions have been abiding by these rules with no problem whatsoever.

And Neal has pointed out the kicker to your argument:

bbauska wrote:It is not the employers responsibility to pay for them.

It turns out that it's cheaper to have insurance that covers it than it is to have insurance that doesn't. Which suggests that employers would not be 'paying' at all. If anything, the Catholic lobby is asking for their reduced-cover insurance to be subsidised - because they won't like it if the premiums are higher.

I have also pointed out that it's not that 'employers' are paying for the provision of contraception. What is happening is that the employers are paying the price for having employees. That's set by a regulated market. Government sets the regulations, the market sets the rates. In this case, employers don't have to provide health insurance (they can pay the 'fine' and the employees will get their insurance themselves), but they choose to. Having chosen to, they have to accept the regulations that are in place (and let's repeat, 28 States already have them, and the EEOC ruled for them years ago). But still, the employers are not providing contraception. They are providing insurance that includes free-to-the-insured cover for contraception and other related services. The employee may never need to use them. They may do. Either way, it costs the employer exactly the same and, crucially, it's part of the remuneration package that belongs to the employee.

By the way, I understand that there's 'availability', for them that can pay.. You are content with that, I (and apparently the majority of your countrymen and women) are not. So what are you really 'sick and tired' of? That your ideological argument has run up against legal precedent, the hypocrisy of the RCC, popular opinion and the current US government?

danivon wrote:But since the Obama compromise was detailed, this thread went awful quiet. I suspect Brad and Russell are wise enough to realise that this was a storm in a teacup.

Nah, I just got tired of the same argument. Obama caved once more and that was enough for me.

Also I've personally known quite a few younger females that had to use birth control to treat endometriosis. Older women get treated all the time with hormones for a variety of reasons.

Should an employer be able to refuse AIDS treatment or other STD treatments if they don't want to pay for the kinds of sexual activities that lead to STDs? If a person has an essential right to privacy, especially in healthcare, the employer has no knowledge of what healthcare is being received.

I very much disagree with health insurance coming from employment, it's nuts, but that it does gives no right to employers to interfere with the sacred right to autonomy and privacy in healthcare.

Neal Anderth wrote:Also I've personally known quite a few younger females that had to use birth control to treat endometriosis. Older women get treated all the time with hormones for a variety of reasons.

Indeed. Contraceptives are not just used for contraception

I very much disagree with health insurance coming from employment, it's nuts, but that it does gives no right to employers to interfere with the sacred right to autonomy and privacy in healthcare.

Quite. It would be better to separate at least basic coverage from employment, but you have the system you have.