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
26900
Points
carcraft 01/09/14 - 04:43 pm
4
1
ICL the issue is government

ICL the issue is government tyranny. That is why liberals put the issue in terms of women's rights , women's health etc. they never answer the Chic Fil-A question because the reality of tyranny is obvious. I really don't expect an answer and as you may have noticed many of the liberal posters are hiding today, tired of getting beat up.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 01/09/14 - 04:53 pm
4
2
Seems that most of the people
Unpublished

Seems that most of the people in favor of abortion have already been born.

Little Lamb
46801
Points
Little Lamb 01/09/14 - 04:56 pm
3
1
No obligation

David Duff asked:

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

Let us remember that there is no requirement (yet) for employers to provide health insurance for their employees. It's still just a perk at this time.

carcraft
26900
Points
carcraft 01/09/14 - 07:01 pm
3
0
Little Lamb there is a

Little Lamb there is a requirement for employers to provide insurance if you have over 50 full time employees. Darden the restaurants owners are experimenting with more part time employees. Many employers are not expanding their businesses because of the health care requirement! This is part of the reason the recovery is so tepid!

stuaby
4346
Points
stuaby 01/09/14 - 07:40 pm
1
1
"Stuaby, I'm trying to

"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?"
I am not saying one thing or another w/ respect to the editorial's point. I was lamenting the fact that your displeasure w/ the editorial was based on a distortion of the underlying point of the editorial. Public debate these days is rife with this kind of thing because people run everything through a propagandized filter that makes it difficult for basic communication to take place.
Anyway, the question you posed in response to me does sum up, as far as I can tell, the premise of the editorial piece.

Bizkit
32828
Points
Bizkit 01/09/14 - 07:44 pm
2
0
Make all your employees part

Make all your employees part owners=that way they have a vested interest in the success or failure. They will take the same risks, benefits or losses. Everyone will get paid the same too. The marxist utopia of Obama in action. it'll be great. eh.

stuaby
4346
Points
stuaby 01/09/14 - 08:07 pm
2
0
Augusta Chronicle: I don't

Augusta Chronicle:
I don't know where your "suggestion" page is (or if you even have one), so I'm just going to put this here:
Why not have a comment system in which:
1. Posters can respond directly to other posters
2. Notification by email or text is available (Not everybody can hang around here and watch for responses.)
Also, why not have a way to keep comments going a little longer? Like having a page that keeps indexed articles that people can see for a while. Under your current system, after a day, most threads are dead, mostly because the links are gone, not necessarily because interest has completely waned. The cumbersome nature of navigating ad-bloated news sites kills any desire to go the extra mile to find articles. (I know that you must have the ads.)
Maybe more people would participate with a few tweaks here and there...

Truth Matters
7139
Points
Truth Matters 01/09/14 - 08:20 pm
1
2
Based on comments on another

Based on comments on another thread it appears most commenting here about birth control are past the age of procreation. In short, let the baby makers sort this one out!

Truth Matters
7139
Points
Truth Matters 01/09/14 - 08:33 pm
2
1
@ stuaby

"Posters can respond directly to other posters"

EXCELLENT suggestion! I have noticed on other papers you can post your comment directly under the one to which you are responding. It does get a little tiring having to paste the comment you are referencing or re-typing most of it.

You can email your comment to: Sean.moores@augustachronicle.com

Have a good evening!

carcraft
26900
Points
carcraft 01/09/14 - 09:03 pm
1
0
Truth Matters, yes many of

Truth Matters, yes many of the posters here maybe past procreation but so are many of the owners of the businesses required to pay for the insurance. Liberty of citizens isn't a matter of age!

WalterBradfordCannon
1470
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 01/09/14 - 09:21 pm
1
4
Bear in mind that this only

Bear in mind that this only covers prescription birth control. That means the woman wants it, and her doctor concurs that it is in her best medical interests to have it. The doctors are all trained on the impact of birth control on women. It is absolutely a no-brainer decision. It is not only in the woman's best interests, but also in the best interests of everyone else. As to the "rights" of the unborn child, whereas that MAY apply to abortion, it certainly does not apply to birth control.

The real issue here is whether employers get to have some limiting controls over the health care of their employees. This is an issue between a woman and her doctor. Her employer ought to mind his own morals before judging hers. And this is even politics disguised as religion. The Southern Baptist Convention, prior to Obama, had no problems with married couples choosing contraception provided it did not interfere with an already conceived human. No, of course, they staunchly oppose Obamacare.

I reiterate. Opposing medical support of birth control is opposing best health practices specifically for women. It is sexist and discriminatory. If you don't want to use birth control, don't use it. But don't deny such an obvious health benefit to others. Don't force your morals on your employees in ways that do not impact business. That's just common sense.

InChristLove
22481
Points
InChristLove 01/09/14 - 09:56 pm
2
1
Pay attention WBC "whether

Pay attention WBC "whether employers get to have some limiting controls over the health care of their employees"

NO ONE IS LIMITING ANYONES HEALTH CARE. They are free to purchase it through other means but their employer should not have to pay for it. NO ONE IS FORCING THEIR MORAL ON YOU....jusp pay for them yourself.

Don't understand that.......NO ONE SAYS THEY CAN NOT TAKE OR PURCHASE Birth Control pills....NO ONE IS LIMITING YOU FROM USING BIRTH CONTROL.....they just have to purchase it themselves.

Don't understand that......Buy your on dang contraceptive pills

The real issue here.....People are too dense for common sense and I'm beginning to think their constant repeating that some are trying to limit birth control is nothing more than a way of instigating debate.

InChristLove
22481
Points
InChristLove 01/09/14 - 09:57 pm
1
0
(WBC) "Don't force your

(WBC) "Don't force your morals on your employees "

So it's okay for the employee to force their morals on their employer?

InChristLove
22481
Points
InChristLove 01/09/14 - 10:00 pm
0
0
(WBC) "That means the woman

(WBC) "That means the woman wants it, and her doctor concurs that it is in her best medical interests to have it."

Fine, then the woman can purchase her pills. Why should the employer have to contribute if he believes it is against his religious beliefs?

stuaby
4346
Points
stuaby 01/09/14 - 10:24 pm
0
1
@ Truth Matters

Done. (email to sean.moores)

Thanks.

Truth Matters
7139
Points
Truth Matters 01/09/14 - 11:15 pm
1
1
@Stuaby 9:24

Sure.
I hope you won't mind that I forwarded your comment to Sean as I couldn't be sure that you would return to the post and see my comment with his email address.

Good luck and keep us all posted.

justthefacts
22674
Points
justthefacts 01/10/14 - 12:13 am
0
0
Ease of use

This site was much easier to follow a couple years ago. The best feature was a "comments" page that kept issues alive. People complained, but apparently, it can't be utilized with the new system. Losing that and gaining the "thumbs up/down" and "points" was a poor trade off in the minds of most regular posters.

stuaby
4346
Points
stuaby 01/10/14 - 01:14 am
1
0
@ justthefacts

You're kidding me. We've sent people to the moon, 40+ years ago, and we can't port dynamic comment features onto upgraded web sites?
We really are screwed.

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 01/10/14 - 06:42 am
0
0
Carcraft

They can get it cheaper than $10-20. If they get a prescription, the Health Department still GIVES birth control pills away!! Let me repeat that, they GIVE IT AWAY!! FREE!!! Notta!!! Nothing!! Zilch!! Zero!!

carcraft
26900
Points
carcraft 01/10/14 - 07:01 am
0
0
As I said, which again those

As I said, which again those supporting this piece of garbage legislation won't address and that is the fact that this is tyranny. If this is for the good of people the government could give a card like an EBT card and your diet would be restricted to diet that would promote health. If an employer has to park his beliefs at door of HIS business then the government should be able to regulate hours of business and force Chic Fil-A to open on Sunday. Health insurance is a taxed employee benefit like vacations, sick leave and salary. Now we can negotiate them to some extent but if your employer doesn't want to provide birth control and that is a breaking point for you, WORK SOME WHERE ELSE!!!

WalterBradfordCannon
1470
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 01/10/14 - 07:51 am
0
1
@InChristLove, you seem to be

@InChristLove, you seem to be of the impression that the employer is "paying for it". In fact, when insurance supports birth control, the employer is saving money. Do you know how much insurance will pay if the woman gets pregnant? You can pay for contraception hundreds of months before it will amount to the cost of even one pregnancy. Health care statisticians have worked out the numbers, which is why insurance companies will pay for it if employers, like the Catholic Church, will not. Health care support for contraception SAVES EMPLOYERS MONEY.

You do have a point, though. To be economically and morally sound, the insurance companies should offer two different rates: one rate for those who support contraception and a significantly higher rate for those who do not. The insurance companies will still offer it for free (it saves them money), and any employer who wants a clear conscience can simply buy it from the insurance company.

carcraft
26900
Points
carcraft 01/10/14 - 07:56 am
1
0
Walter, it doesn't matter how

Walter, it doesn't matter how you feel or what happens about pregnancies . The person that undergoes the risk, invests the money and juries the employees gets to decide the benefit package , not the government that has ZERO at risk in the enterprise!

WalterBradfordCannon
1470
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 01/10/14 - 09:17 am
0
1
My point is that if it were

My point is that if it were purely economically determined, the employer would have to pay MORE to deny contraception. At that point, would it even be a debate?

The reason 100% coverage of prescription contraception is included is because it saves money. A LOT OF MONEY. If you don't want to provide coverage of prescription contraception, you, as an employer, should have to pay more money - a lot more money - for that coverage. A great many things in the Affordable Care Act are covered with no co-pay. The reasons are always the same, and it is always economic, not moral or religious.

To bring this back to the debate, AN EMPLOYER NEVER HAS TO PAY FOR THEIR EMPLOYEE'S CONTRACEPTION. The insurance company pays that money, and views it as a net money saver. It actually decreases the cost of coverage, because you can pay for hundreds to thousands of months of birth control for the same price as the health care costs of one pregnancy. So the oft cited line "I don't want to have to pay for my employee's birth control!" is actually not true. You should have to pay extra to deny it (speaking purely economically - and economics is not a moral play).

Sean Moores
700
Points
Sean Moores 01/10/14 - 09:39 am
0
0
@ stuaby 7:07 and TruthMatters

Thanks for the suggestions. There have been discussions recently on changes to the commenting system. I will relay your ideas. If any of you ever need anything at The Chronicle, send me an email. sean.moores@augustachronicle.com

carcraft
26900
Points
carcraft 01/10/14 - 03:10 pm
0
0
WBC, When is every decision

WBC, When is every decision purely economical? If Chic Fil-a were ran on a purely economical bases it would be open Sunday. If many homes were run on an economical bases many people would not give to Charity. Our belief and value systems inform much of our existence and happiness. So what does the founder of Hobby Lobby do when government tyranny colloids with his Moral and ethical values?

GodisSoGood
950
Points
GodisSoGood 01/10/14 - 04:35 pm
1
0
I once had a co-worker tell

I once had a co-worker tell me that if our employer wanted her to stop smoking as part of their "smoke-free workplace" that they should pay for her to go to a smoking cessation program. To which my response was, "Well, I like to eat, and thus, I gain weight. Should I expect them to also pay for me to lose weight?" A bad habit is a choice, not the fault of the employer. It's not the employer's place to fix a bad habit. I left her speechless.

GodisSoGood
950
Points
GodisSoGood 01/10/14 - 04:39 pm
0
0
@myfather15 01/10/14 - 05:42 am

They aren't free....our taxes pay for it! :)

GodisSoGood
950
Points
GodisSoGood 01/10/14 - 04:42 pm
0
0
WBC

WBC - Insurance Companies pay for benefits that the EMPLOYER elects to provide for its employees AT A COST. The EMPLOYER pays a portion of the insurance and the employee pays the remaining cost. So to say that the EMPLOYER does not pay for the benefits is not an accurate statement. It used to be that the contracts prices were based on the benefits provided, so essentially, an EMPLOYER DOES PAY for the benefits.

InChristLove
22481
Points
InChristLove 01/10/14 - 06:10 pm
0
0
Thank you GodisSoGood! How

Thank you GodisSoGood! How someone can not understand something so simple is unbelievable.

(WBC) "Health care support for contraception SAVES EMPLOYERS MONEY. "

No WBC, it saves insurance companies money, not the employer. The employer will have to submit the same payment to the insurance company for each employee whether they are pregnant or not. My spouse pays the same premium to the insurance company whether I'm a pregnant or not....

WalterBradfordCannon
1470
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 01/10/14 - 06:56 pm
0
1
@InChristLove, insurance

@InChristLove, insurance works by evaluating the likely expenditures for coverage over a group for a long period of time, adding a profit, and charging the insured based on expected payouts. Expected payouts go up, WAY WAY up, if contraception is not used. If you evaluated premiums of two otherwise equal groups - one with contraception coverage, and one without, the group without would have a MUCH higher premium. They would pay for child care. Leave time. Prenatal checks. Deliveries. Additional dependants. Etc.

Isn't is a shame they didn't force all insurers to simply offer two, otherwise fair, premiums, one assuming 100% coverage of prescription contraception, and the other with no contraception coverage? Then Hobby Lobby and the Catholic Church could simply choose the no contraception coverage option, and pay more for their employee's health care coverage.

The entire debate is off-base. Contraception reduces health care costs, by a lot. Not providing it on a moral basis should be absolutely fine, but THE EXTRA COSTS SHOULD BE PAID OUT OF POCKET BY THE EMPLOYER IF HE WANTS TO DENY CONTRACEPTION COVERAGE. That basically means he would be paying the full cost of the extra prenatal, postnatal, baby delivery, and dependent coverage, out of pocket. How many moralistic employers would we have then?

The whole debate would just go away. Instead we have people "claiming" that the employer is paying for birth control, when exactly the opposite is the economic reality.

Back to Top

Top headlines

ARC to honor 1956 championship team

Because the championship year of 1956 has never lost its glory in Richmond Academy football lore, the team will be honored Thursday at the third annual ARC Hall of Fame banquet, where 10 alumni ...
Search Augusta jobs