** Today’s post is a response to this post on Mindful Disgressions. I follow this blog and I recommend checking it out. I don’t agree with a lot of his opinions, but they are well presented, thought provoking and a good read.
Are they open on Sundays?
There is a good chance that this post will piss off the people on both sides of this argument, because I don’t agree with either of them. This will not be a lengthy post. My opinions on this issue are pretty cut and dried.
WHY HOBBY LOBBY AND THE SUPREME COURT ARE WRONG
It should come as no surprise that I’m at odds with the religious right. I’m almost always at odds with the religious right. I do not think that you should be allowed to exempt yourself from a law because of your religious beliefs. What if I decide that taxes are against my religion? Does that mean I can stop paying them? What if I say that my religion has no problem with rape? Does that mean I can go around raping women with no consequences? I think we all know the answer to those questions. You may not agree with the law, but it’s still a law. You shouldn’t be able to use religion to receive an exemption. It’s a bunch of crap and it’s one hell of a slippery slope. You shouldn’t be able to get around the law by invoking your invisible man. That’s all I’ve got to say about that.
WHY THE OPPOSITION IS WRONG
No business should be required to include birth control as a part of it’s healthcare package, period. Religion shouldn’t even be a factor. Why is this a mandatory thing? It makes no sense. As a matter of fact, the government should not be involved in health insurance at all. The government should not be involved in healthcare at all. If I’m an employer, why should the government be allowed to tell me what I can and cannot offer my employees for their services? I don’t want to turn this into an Obamacare debate, that’s a different post, but this is just another example of government overstepping it’s bounds. Health insurance was first offered as part of a compensation package as an incentive for employees to work for certain companies. Smart employers saw it as a way to lure the best and brightest individuals to their company. Health insurance through the employer started in the private marketplace. Just the way it should be. In the private marketplace, some businesses would offer birth control as part of the benefits package and some wouldn’t. As an employee, you would have the choice of not working for a place that doesn’t offer it. Some employers would offer it for a competitive advantage. Some wouldn’t. It’s really that simple. Of course, our politicians just can’t keep their grubby, corrupt hands off of anything. The government gets involved and it turns into a complete disaster. Imagine that.
Deadeye 
The U.S. has the most expensive and least inclusive health system out of all the OECD countries. Surely access to adequate health services just as much a right as is an education or free speech. while I agree with you that employers should not be directly responsible for their employees health outside the workplace, how would you solve the problem of so many Americans being unable to obtain adequate healthcare?
Thank you for your thoughts. As I mentioned in my reply on the other blog, I don’t think government belongs in the healthcare business. Private charity is a much better option. It has the added benefit that I only give my money to it if I want to. The government takes it from me at the point of a gun.
Well, I do agree with the whole government shouldn’t even be allowed to have a say in what a employer has to offer their employees, but I don’t think churches should have to pay taxes because 1. Their income is based on tithe. Money received from people who have already paid taxes on the money they are giving. 2. All the humanitarian work people do of their own free will. Churches are the biggest source of private humanitarian work/donations to help the needy. I do not want to discourage what I believe should be done privately and of our own free will instead of my tax dollars paying for it. That would be hypocritical.
I’m perfectly fine with charity operating tax free. I’m going to play devil’s advocate on the church taxes, though. When you go to the store, you are spending money that was already taxed. Does that mean the store should be able to operate tax free as well?
Good post, Dan. A relatively “fair and balanced” response. Of course, I do have some comments, so here goes:
“No business should be required to include birth control as a part of it’s healthcare package, period.” So no business should be required to include any preventive services in the benefits package offered to employees? No annual physical exams, for example?
By the way, this issue, in my humble opinion, with employer-sponsored health insurance is that it only works for you while you’re working for a particular employer. If you switch jobs, you have to switch health insurance plans in most cases. And maybe switch doctors. And if quit or get fired, you’re shit out of luck when it comes to health insurance. Why shouldn’t universal health insurance be available to all citizens, those who work for employers who provide health insurance, those who work for employers who don’t, and those who don’t work?
“Health insurance through the employer started in the private marketplace. Just the way it should be.” Why should it be that way. The US healthcare system is not working. Depending upon the private sector is not working very well at all.
“As an employee, you would have the choice of not working for a place that doesn’t offer [contraceptives].” That might be true if we were a full-employment economy. But we’re far from it. People don’t always have the ability to “shop around” for a job in order to get better benefits or, specifically, contraceptive benefits. Most people these days who have a job are just thankful to have a job.
“The government” is just trying to level the playing field.
Doobster, it’s pretty clear that we just have fundamental differences in how things should work. That’s alright, though. I enjoy debating with others who disagree with me, as long as everyone is able to keep it civil. As I said at the beginning of this post, although I tend to disagree with your views, they are well though out and well presented.
I don’t think any business should be required to provide their employees with anything. Employers who choose not to offer quality compensation will end up with lousy workers.
I would argue that we haven’t had a chance to see the private market work in the healthcare arena. Even before Obamacare, government had their influence all over the healthcare system.
I don’t think that healthcare is an inalienable right. If you want quality healthcare, you need to go out and work for it. That’s what I do. If you have made choices in your life that don’t allow you to afford it, that’s on you. I paid my own way through college. 10 years later and I am still paying off my student loan. Yet, I have to pay for not only my own healthcare, but the healthcare of those who have chosen NOT to put themselves in a position to have a job with quality compensation. For those people who do find themselves down and out, there are plenty of charity organizations that would be glad to help.
I should qualify all these statements by saying that I am just fine with certain people getting some government assistance. People who are unable to obtain quality employment though no fault of their own. For example, mentally and/or physically disabled. Also, military veterans.
Finally, I don’t think that leveling the playing field should be a function of the government.
Pingback: Deadeye | The Job Market