Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
Believe it or not, I am in complete agreement that religious organizations shouldn't be forced to pay for things that are against the religion. It gets murky once the Church or any organization chooses to employ people who have different religious beliefs, but if it is clear in the terms of employment, and the employee agrees to them, so be it. My personal opinion is that this part of the health law was questionable, though not necessarily unconstitutional. It doesn't prevent practice of religion or force anyone into a religion. That said... the law needed to be changed. The way they changed the law, no matter what someones "opinion" is, eliminates the burden for the church to specifically cover birth control of employees who choose to use it. The cost of the birth control can be eaten by the insurance company. It may reduce profits by some small percent, but it would prevent the church from paying for it. Another perspective is that the costs of all prescriptions are actually already written into the formula used by the underwriters in determining rates , so the Church is affected by birth control costs, no matter what (even if some claim that it isn't true).
|
"I am in complete agreement that religious organizations shouldn't be forced to pay for things that are against the religion. It gets murky once the Church or any organization chooses to employ people who have different religious beliefs,"
So you think it makes sense to penalize the Catholic church for hiring non-Catholics? They should be rewarded for that kind of tolerance, no?
"The cost of the birth control can be eaten by the insurance company. "
No, it can't, and it won't. It will get passed on to the Church. Or, it would, if that law ever got enacted, but it will not. When actuaries set the rates, they do it based on what the policy covers. If the policy is changed to cover more, it necessarily costs more. Customers pay for the cost of the products they buy.