Wages vs. Insurance
So, I'm arguing with a friend of my uncle's (politely, as I don't want my uncle to lose friends because his nephew won't shut up) about the recent action of HHS against religion. One of his recent arguments:
"This is a little like refusing to give their employees the portion of their paychecks they were going to use before birth control."
I understand that paying for insurance is different than simply paying wages. If they were equivalent then there would be no reason for business to offer health policies. What is precisely the difference that makes HHS's rule so onerous.
Or, bonus round, am I arguing this incorrectly?
- Answer (2)
- · Comment (3)
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Answer by
Your friend's argument is just the same as the church's but it is the wrong one here. There is no first amendment protection from employers. There does not need to be, you can find another job that offers your preferred insurance, but moving to another country? Remember that the bill of rights are largely things the government cannot make you do. The Obama administration is trying to trample on the bill of rights.
Answer by Palaeologus
"This is a little like refusing to give their employees the portion of their paychecks they were going to use before birth control."
True enough, if you wanted the birth control.
Guess what? Not everyone needs that in his health care plan.
Employees who cost more to insure collect less in wages. Being over-insured is not a good thing.
I don't suppose my parents would currently prefer more expensive health care plans that subsidize birth control at the cost of wage growth. I'd bet that people who get their insurance through a spouse wouldn't be too keen on their employer expanding coverage and limiting wages, either. That 35 year-old dude you know with the 5 kids and the vasectomy? This might not benefit him. I also suspect that gay and lesbian employees might not make out like bandits on this one.
The other commenters are right that this is about more than bad policy.
But if you are talking with someone who couldn't care less about religious liberty, there is some ammo.
maureen dirienzo: I would question why birth control is even considered "health care". Fertility is not a disease. Birth control is a life style decision. The feminists have worked long and hard to make contraception a "right" to which they must have "access", meaning someone else should pay for it. If you can pay for your ipad, pay for your pills.
- #1
- · February 14, 2012 at 3:48pm
- · LikeUnlike (0)
Sandy: Moreover one could question whether, on balance, The Pill has done anything positive for anyone's health, since it carries with it increased risk of breast and other cancers, as well as heart attack and stroke, and is a big part of the reason for the spread of STDs. This is an ideological issue pure and simple.
- #2
- · February 21, 2012 at 12:00am
- · LikeUnlike (0)
Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.
Ottoman Umpire: I may be experiencing end-of-week denseness, but I'm not sure if I understand your uncle's friend's meaning. Is it supposed to be "before birth control" or "for birth control"?
Edited on February 11, 2012 at 1:49amTom Lindholtz: I don't understand the point either. But the only reason employers started paying for insurance was because there were government imposed wage freezes at the time. So, in a "gamesmanship" work-around, employers just picked up an employee expense in lieu of a wage increase. So, whatever point he's trying to make, the government meddled in that, too.
John Murdoch: The issue is not whether the employee is getting something of value or not. It's whether the government can force someone to do something that violates their conscience. It isn't about birth control.
The new rule forces people to do something they regard as morally reprehensible--and assesses staggering fines ($2,000/employee/year) if they do not.
Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.