Boss isn't morality judge

  • Follow Letters

On Jan. 6, The Augusta Chronicle published an editorial titled “What freedoms will be left?” It talked about how providing birth control as part of mandated health insurance is an infringement on religious rights. This isn’t a new debate, but I wanted to share some thoughts on the matter.

First off, I’m generally a believer in smaller government. The real debate should be about whether government should be telling businesses they have to provide health insurance in any capacity. That being said, I’m really not sure why people think that letting people get birth control as part of their health plans is some major infringement on their own religious liberties.

The writer of this editorial talks about it like the government is force-feeding everyone birth control. It should be pointed out that just because it’s an option on someone’s health insurance doesn’t mean they have to use it. Those individuals still have their own choice of whether or not they want to take birth control.

It also should be noted that most religious people aren’t opposed to birth control. Most of them are opposed to sex out of wedlock. This means there are many people who believe it’s morally acceptable for some to take birth control but not others.

The question I have would be: Why is it my employer’s job to make my moral decisions? If we’re letting our employers have the full moral authority then you leave it open to allow forms of discrimination. For example, maybe I own a business and I want to give my married employees access to birth control but not the unmarried ones. Should I be allowed to be that kind of moral authority? Also there are some people who don’t believe in modern medicine at all, as per their religious beliefs. Does this mean these people should be exempt from providing health insurance to employees altogether?

Bottom line: If companies are going to have to provide health insurance, it shouldn’t be any boss’ job to make the moral decisions of his or her employees.

Dallas Duff

Evans

Comments (59) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
carcraft
25803
Points
carcraft 01/09/14 - 06:44 am
12
3
The writer says "it isn't

The writer says "it isn't like the government is force feeding every one birth control ". No the government is forcing every one to pay for birth control. Then the write states "because it is an option ". It isn't an option, it is a REQUIREMENT on every plan. Your employer PAYS for and allows you to get better coverage at a lower price by offering a group plan. Now when I purchase an item I get to decide what bells and whistles are in it. Your employer used to have a RIGHT to decide what benefits to offer. If I don't like the benefits offered by an employer don't work fot that imployer. Now if you really feel the boss shouldn't decide what benefits to offer and it should be your decision why does the government have that right!?

InChristLove
22473
Points
InChristLove 01/09/14 - 06:53 am
9
3
"Why is it my employer’s job

"Why is it my employer’s job to make my moral decisions?"

It's not, but if I choose to work for that employer, why is it his/her responsibility to pay for something for me, that goes against his/her religious belief. If I want the service, then I can choose to work somewhere else where that employer does provide the service or I should be the one to pay for it, not my employer.

If I go to work for Chick-fil-a and I know they are a religious based business and do not operate on Sunday but I want to work at a job 7 days a week, am I going to force Chick-fil-a to go against their religious belief and operate on Sunday, just because I want it?

Who's freedom are we stepping on then, Dallas?

We aren't talking about providing service to one group of people and not to another. You asked "Does this mean these people should be exempt from providing health insurance to employees altogether?"

There was a time when this was possible. A business owner provided medical insurance as a BENEFIT......now they don't have a choice in the matter.

myfather15
55706
Points
myfather15 01/09/14 - 07:43 am
8
3
Mr. Duff

"I’m really not sure why people think that letting people get birth control as part of their health plans is some major infringement on their own religious liberties."

Guess what? I'm really not sure either, but their personal beliefs are NOT my business. Why do you feel your opinion of their beliefs are more important than theirs? I certainly don't believe MINE are. Government and YOU, should stay completely out of their personal beliefs!!

"It also should be noted that most religious people aren’t opposed to birth control.'

Why should this be noted? What does THEIR beliefs, have to do with other individuals? I think you're probably right about this, as I'm not opposed to birth control either. But I will NOT tell them what to believe.

See, the LEFT, loves to tout that the majority opinion, doesn't rule the minority in this Country. Until, the point where the left's "opinion" is the minority, then it's fine for the minority views to rule over others!!

myfather15
55706
Points
myfather15 01/09/14 - 07:51 am
9
3
Again

"Why is it my employer’s job to make my moral decisions?"

This isn't happening, at least not on this topic!! We're talking BIRTH CONTROL, not moral decisions!! You're confusing the issue!! Noone is giving employers "full authority" over moral issues!!

"For example, maybe I own a business and I want to give my married employees access to birth control but not the unmarried ones."

This, would be called hypocritical!! You can't "Not believe in birth control" but then willlingly provide it to CERTAIN people and not to others. It must be accross the board or it CAN fall into discrimination!!

"Does this mean these people should be exempt from providing health insurance to employees altogether?"

Mr. Duff, correct me if I'm wrong, but before ACA employers did NOT have to provide insurance to their employees. There was no LAW requiring employers to do so!! I know many people who work and their employers don't provide health insurance.

carcraft
25803
Points
carcraft 01/09/14 - 07:56 am
9
3
You are correct and 4imillion

You are correct and 4imillion lost that insurance when Obama lied

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/09/14 - 08:24 am
9
3
I wonder if the writer would
Unpublished

I wonder if the writer would be OK if the Government required all employers to provide its employees with a firearm, since that is a right that is actually in the Constitution, whereas free healthcare is not.

ymnbde
9723
Points
ymnbde 01/09/14 - 08:27 am
10
4
so is Religion infringing upon government?

government can give nothing to one person
that it doesn't take from another
morals included
would you have paid your fare and ridden in the front of the bus
because you weren't responsible for the "back of the bus" rule?
the seating arrangements weren't "your" decision
you would have only been riding the bus, not participating in the process
of discrimination
so if "the boss" pays for someone else's birth control
is she not participating in a process with which she disagrees
and her religion disagrees?
certain freedoms for workers and others for business owners?
the government cannot override the freedoms endowed by her creator just because she owns a business

SGT49
1940
Points
SGT49 01/09/14 - 09:30 am
8
3
Issues like this are just

Issues like this are just pecking around the fringes and divert attention from the real issue that you mentioned in the first part of your letter. The government does not have the right to dictate to any employer that they provide insurance to employees. The left wants us bickering and wasting time on these side issues.

Bizkit
31329
Points
Bizkit 01/09/14 - 09:58 am
7
3
Government isn't morality

Government isn't morality judge either.

deestafford
27553
Points
deestafford 01/09/14 - 10:39 am
8
3
This has been portrayed as preventing...

This has been portrayed as preventing someone from getting birth control pills when it involves much more than that. It also includes the employer paying for the abortion pill and other "birth control" procedures. Notice how the left tries to sanitize the issue into something innocuous sounding.

dichotomy
32904
Points
dichotomy 01/09/14 - 11:19 am
7
3
And then there is a

And then there is a legitimate discussion as to whether birth control is an actual "health" issue. I mean....I require food to survive and remain healthy but my health insurance does not pay my grocery bill. There are many effective birth control products and even the morning after pill available as over the counter products like deodorant, vitamin supplements, and a box of chocolates. Why should any insurance be forced to provide them and why should any employer be forced to pay for them? I also don't understand why insurance companies should provide Viagra. The decision to use those doctor prescribed options is a CHOICE of CONVENIENCE, not a medical health necessity. All of that stuff should be offered as a rider that the employee can add if they wish to pay for it. And people who DO NOT WANT and DO NOT NEED those things SHOULD NOT be forced to pay for policies that include them.

Dixieman
14943
Points
Dixieman 01/09/14 - 11:46 am
7
3
Dixieman's health care reform package

Health insurance started to be an employee benefit during WWII to get around wartime wage controls. It mushroomed into a defective system where employees do not care how much is spent (because they don't pay it) so they overuse doctors and hospitals, and employers can't control costs (because the decision to see a doctor or not and treatment is out of their control and made by the employee) and hospitals and doctors ramp up costs because the user does not pay.
Answer: Cancel all employer paid health insurance -- all of it. Give employees a raise and let them buy insurance or not as they see fit and are 100% for all their medical costs, insurance covered or not. Couple it with real medical malpractice reform. Watch medical expenses plummet and doctors and hospitals adjust their fees accordingly. A true free market solution which will work.

itsanotherday1
43015
Points
itsanotherday1 01/09/14 - 12:23 pm
6
3
Home run ICL

"It's not, but if I choose to work for that employer, why is it his/her responsibility to pay for something for me, that goes against his/her religious belief. If I want the service, then I can choose to work somewhere else where that employer does provide the service or I should be the one to pay for it, not my employer.

carcraft
25803
Points
carcraft 01/09/14 - 12:53 pm
6
2
ICL and Itsanotherday, that

ICL and Itsanotherday, that is my main point, and why is the government involved at all ?

ralphinga
1230
Points
ralphinga 01/09/14 - 12:55 pm
1
4
Govt mandates insurance

Wait till we see what comes next when Obama Care fails.
Change the law so that the price for all health insurance is
set nationwide, with a defined common, minimal benefit benefit base. Allow insurance companies to operate across state lines and set limits on their profits. It is a government monopoly. Pay a set amount for the cost of medical school education for those who get licensed. Require service in underserved areas or in military medicine. Amend malpractice laws and set the maximum values in conjunction with strong peer reviews and penalties. Set prices for supplements to the policies that many folks don't need, such as obstetrics for senior women or birth control for old farts, maybe addiction & mental health care, or gender reassignment surgery. Make all persons pay their own bill from salary or benefits received. Do it now before we get stuck with a single payer system.

Bizkit
31329
Points
Bizkit 01/09/14 - 01:06 pm
6
2
Why not respect both wishes?

Why not respect both wishes? The employer can opt out for providing birth control but employees will have a health care account-like an HSA-that they can pay for some non-prescription health care needs like birth control or penis pump (make it gender neutral).

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/09/14 - 01:26 pm
7
1
Biz..that is the way it USED
Unpublished

Biz..that is the way it USED to be, but the liberals passed the ACA and took away eveyone's choice. We went from literally thousands of choices of insurance plans, to four.

duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 01/09/14 - 02:02 pm
2
7
a few more thoughts

Here's A few more thoughts: I totally understand the viewpoint of not putting regulations on businesses in terms of them having to provide health care. I don't however understand how allowing an employee to get birth control w their provided health plan is somehow infringing my own personal religious liberties. I just don't understand that argument. I understand not wanting to subsidize things you don't like or disagree with, but I'm not really sure how thats an assault on your own religious liberties as an individual? Everyone's morally opposed to something the government is spending money on. I understand wanting to keep the government small and out of your pocket. I'm all about that, but I'm not gonna pretend that its morally infringing upon me to allow birth control in my employees health care plan. The real argument is, you don't wanna pay for it!! I think its really a financial issue more than it is a moral one. I might be morally opposed to most of what my taxes go towards. I'm actually morally opposed to government handouts all together, with the exception of paying for things like roads and bridges amongst maybe few other things. However, I'm still gonna have to pay taxes and I don't think its morally infringing upon my religious rights/personal beliefs every time the government spends my money on things I don't want them spending my money on. lol

stuaby
3902
Points
stuaby 01/09/14 - 02:02 pm
4
2
We're in bad shape

This guy has somehow managed to twist an employer's not wanting to sponsor employee insurance that goes against his (the employer's) conscience into the employer using insurance coverage as a means of policing the morality of his employees.
People like Duff and Greenbaum ,whose logic tends to flow like spaghetti, are multiplying like flies. We're in deep shh. This society is like the Titannic after it hit the iceberg. The question is how long before the stern rises out of the water.

duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 01/09/14 - 02:19 pm
2
3
Stuaby...

Stuaby, I'm trying to understand your point...You're saying an employer should not have to sponsor any form of insurance that goes against the employers moral conscience? Is that correct?

carcraft
25803
Points
carcraft 01/09/14 - 02:07 pm
3
1
No we are just rearranging

No we are just rearranging deck chairs, we stated takin on water about $10 trillion in debt or so!

duffstuff
722
Points
duffstuff 01/09/14 - 02:18 pm
4
0
My Big Point

My big point is, there are lots of good arguments to be had here, and I don't think crying "infringement on personal religious liberties" is one of them. I'd cry..."I don't want the government putting any of my money in someone else's pocket." Thats a better argument cause its less contestable.

nocnoc
42516
Points
nocnoc 01/09/14 - 02:28 pm
5
1
Boss vs Employee + Government

The Boss owns the job that a person CHOOSES to seek employment at.
If the Boss's beliefs go against yours, there is a door you are free to use.

Why should you an employee, or the Government be able to FORCE any business OWNER, that you CHOOSE to work for, to go against their Moral, religious or personal beliefs.

Look at it a different in reverse using different criteria.
If you were the Boss, the Owner of the Business, would it be acceptable for a Employee to get raises on demand? Or if the employees decided all profits to be split equally among each worker including the owners. Or for the Government to decide your business is part of the employees, because they happen to work there? This is part of what Socialism/Communism stands for btw.

carcraft
25803
Points
carcraft 01/09/14 - 02:35 pm
5
1
Religious freedom is indeed

Religious freedom is indeed an issue. As I and others have argued should Chic Fil-A be forced to be open 7 days a week? What about the " right" to work for for 7th day Adventist who want to work on Sunday? Why is government involved in deciding your employment benefits? Why if you don't think the employe buying part of health insurance shouldn't have a say why does the government?

InChristLove
22473
Points
InChristLove 01/09/14 - 02:43 pm
5
1
Duff, maybe you can

Duff, maybe you can understand this better. Senario......I own a business and because of my religious belief, I do not work on Sundays.

You are my employee.....is it your right to demand that I open for business on Sunday just because you demand to be able to work 7 days a week?

If I own a business and because it is my religious belief, I do not agree with abortion or birth control. What right do you have, as an employee to force me to provide you with medical insurance that covers these things?

Just as it is your right to work a part time job on Sundays, it is also your right to purchase birth control pills by other means.

Red Headed Step Child
4055
Points
Red Headed Step Child 01/09/14 - 03:18 pm
0
2
HSA

HSA plans still exist..I have one through my employer sponsored plan. I think that there's an issue with what you can purchase using HSA funds. Used to be you could use money from an HSA to purchase over the counter health products like tylenol, etc., but I believe that has changed.

Based on what I read in IRS Publication 502, you can only write off medicines that required a prescription. On the HSA site, here's what it says about qualified medical expenses: non-prescription medicines (other than insulin) are not considered qualified medical expenses for HSA purposes. A medicine or drug will be a qualified medical expense for HSA purposes only if the medicine or drug:
1.Requires a prescription
2.Is available without a prescription (an over-the-counter medicine or drug) and you get a prescription for it, or
3.Is insulin.

I'd encourage everyone to take a look at Publication 502 - who knew you could write off breast pumps and pregnancy tests? I didn't see anything about the penis pumps, Bizkit...too bad. ;-)

Here's the link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf

WalterBradfordCannon
1442
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 01/09/14 - 03:15 pm
0
6
@InChristLove, please keep in

@InChristLove,
please keep in mind that people needing abortion in the case of rape also need medical insurance. I have no problem with this coverage - after all - did not Saint Peter make all christian property common, and distribute to all according to their need? (Acts:4.32-7)

We also need to be clear on what the Affordable Care Act says about Birth Control. It says that most FDA approved, prescription, birth control devices and medications are to be covered with no co-pay. In other words, insurance will cover the full cost. Unless the employer objects on religious grounds, and does the paperwork for an exemption. Then the employee can still get prescription Birth Control for no cost directly from the insurer, at no cost to the employer.

Bear in mind the real driving force here are the hundreds of medical studies showing that women's health issues are substantially advanced by use of birth control. There are linked reductions in infant mortality, maternal mortality, and woman's overall well-being (ability to support themselves financially, ability to take care of family, ability to finish education). Society as a whole benefits enormously when women who want to use birth control have access to it.

It is primarily a women's only issue. But you can imagine if the roles were reversed. What if removing access to birth control led to increased mortality OF MEN? What if it threatened the jobs OF MEN, threatened their ability to take care of their families, threatened their ability to finish their education?

Something tells me you would be singing a different tune.

carcraft
25803
Points
carcraft 01/09/14 - 03:40 pm
5
1
WBC Good grief, women can

WBC Good grief, women can get birth control for as cheaply as $10 to 20 per month. If an employer doesn't provide birth control the employee can work else where. Stress is purported to be a major cause of illness should the government mandate every body take a week of vacation every three months if they want to or not? No on limits women's access to birth control BUT who pays for it is the question. If society benefits from healthy population why not issue ration cards and limit purchases of food to those on a government list? No exceptions for religions that oppose the eating of meat, so much animal protein must be bought. Well why not just mandate a diet that must be followed? Every one would be healthier and obesity could be ended etc? OR why don't we assume people can take care of themselves and stop trying to force is onto a Nannie state.

carcraft
25803
Points
carcraft 01/09/14 - 04:07 pm
6
1
WBC there is nothing free, no

WBC there is nothing free, no perpetual energy machine, or money tree. What ever the insurance companies provide some one pays for it. Despite the liberal belief insurance companies DON'T have a money tree! So it was nice of Obama to offer "free" birth control he should be required to write the check on HIS bank account.

InChristLove
22473
Points
InChristLove 01/09/14 - 04:20 pm
4
1
WBC, I have no problem with

WBC, I have no problem with anyone having medical insurance but if you need birth control or you need an abortion, you need to pay for it yourself. Sounds hard, well maybe it is but whether a child was conceived by accident or by rape, I believe that child still has a right to live. I agree that it would be emotionally hard for a woman to carry a child from an act of rape but there is always adoption available and I don’t believe murder is a just cause to a pregnancy by rape. I believe God created the child and He has a purpose for that child no matter how he/she was conceived.

Wonderful that you use scripture to try and make your point….but you are taking scripture out of context (why am I not surprised). In Acts, Peter and John went back to their OWN people and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them (verse 23). Then in verse 32 it says “32 All the believers were one in heart and mind.” This wasn’t a whole nation or country of people, this was a small group of Christ followers that stayed with John and Peter, sharing their property. Much like a family does. But nice try on twisting scripture.

(WBC) “In other words, insurance will cover the full cost….for no cost directly to the insurer, at no cost to the employer.”

Wrong, if the employer pays any portion of the employees policy, then they are contributors to the cost of the birth control pills.

(WBC) “Bear in mind the real driving force here are the hundreds of medical studies showing that women's health issues are substantially advanced by use of birth control. “

Scientific evidence suggests using birth control pills for longer periods of time increases your risk of some cancers, such as cervical cancer and liver cancer. Birth control pills can affect cholesterol levels. Birth control pills may slightly increase blood pressure. You have some links that show birth control pills substantially advance a woman’s health because everything I’ve read does not state that.

WBC, there is not a lack of access to birth control…..the issue is who pays for it. Why can’t people get it through their thick heads that religious groups are not trying to do away with birth control pills and the morning after pill, they are against having to pay for it for someone else!

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs