It is in fact true that if you are going to pass a law that makes businesses over 50 people provide insurance to their employees, then you are going to have to deal with their religious objections to parts of that insurance as well. Ive long been an advocate of getting rid of the employer based insurance system in favor of a single payer system. Many would most certainly not be in favor of that, but it would solve the problem of religious objections. Clearly, the Court already seems to indicate that the Administrations work around for non-for-profit religious companies can now just apply to for-profit closely held ones, which also seems to indicate that the Court will probably decide against Eternal World TV network, if and when they take that case, which is working its way through the Courts in the Federal District of Alabama (forwardprogressives/federal-court-rules-religious-company-contraception-coverage/). Another solution is to reform the ACA to say that anyone can choose to get insurance through their employers or buy it on the health exchange and that you have the option to take the employer plan or get your own. But, that also means that the individual mandate would need to be even stronger. Dont forget, the reason the law was passed in the first place was because trillions of federal taxpayer dollars were being spent (redistributed) on the hospital bills of people who got sick, didnt have insurance, and couldnt pay - a problem that the mandates (both the employer and individual ones) are supposed to solve. Also, quick note, our interview with Nadine Strossen (former ACLU President) from last week predicted the Hobby Lobby case would be decided just as it was today. You can check that article here: forwardprogressives/special-interview-former-aclu-president-nadine-strossen/
Posted on: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 00:18:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015