1 of 4
1
Should employers be allowed to opt out of offering treatments they object to?
Posted: 23 May 2013 01:47 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2230
Joined  2007-04-26

There is a challenge in the courts right now from several companies that want protection from a part of the ACA that requires employers to cover the morning after pill. I could go into the ignorance behind this complaint ( ie: that the pill induces an abortion - it does not) but the real question is whether we should allow exemptions at all. What if a company were owned by the Jahova’s Witnesses. Should they be allowed to deny coverage for blood transfusions to their employees?

Just one more reason why we need universal coverage. Its just another example of insanity in the existing system. You may have serious gaps in your coverage depending on who you work for and you may not even know it.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 02:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04

I lean heavily toward allowing no exemptions, lest the ACA become as riddled with loopholes as is the IRS.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 02:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

What if a company were owned by the Jahova’s Witnesses. Should they be allowed to deny coverage for blood transfusions to their employees?

My answer to that would be “NO!”

What one practices in terms of their religion is their own business so long as it effects nobody else. When somebody’s religion expresses itself in a manner which effects my life, health and safety, that’s crossing a line that these people have no business crossing.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2013 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
macgyver - 23 May 2013 01:47 PM

There is a challenge in the courts right now from several companies that want protection from a part of the ACA that requires employers to cover the morning after pill. I could go into the ignorance behind this complaint ( ie: that the pill induces an abortion - it does not) but the real question is whether we should allow exemptions at all. What if a company were owned by the Jahova’s Witnesses. Should they be allowed to deny coverage for blood transfusions to their employees?

Just one more reason why we need universal coverage. Its just another example of insanity in the existing system. You may have serious gaps in your coverage depending on who you work for and you may not even know it.

Hear, hear! MacGyver! Exemptions have no place in any medical system for any reason.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  816
Joined  2012-04-25

Just to play devils advocate… Does this mean Chik Fil A shouldn’t be allowed to be closed on Sunday?  The bottomline with the case described is, should a business with a religious owner be able to impose his beliefs on his employees? Being closed on Sunday is straight from the CFA owners religious beliefs. Should that be illegal?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 12:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
CuthbertJ - 24 May 2013 10:19 AM

Just to play devils advocate… Does this mean Chik Fil A shouldn’t be allowed to be closed on Sunday?  The bottomline with the case described is, should a business with a religious owner be able to impose his beliefs on his employees? Being closed on Sunday is straight from the CFA owners religious beliefs. Should that be illegal?

No. That’s a different law and a different category altogether.  One is a business decision. A business owner can either conduct business or close it for his own reasons within the business law of the state or municipality.  The other comes under employee benefits law and is in place for the protection of the employee.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2013 04:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

Does this mean Chik Fil A shouldn’t be allowed to be closed on Sunday?

Restaurant operating hours don’t effect medical treatment issues or options. If they don’t want to do business on Sundays…or odd numbered Ramadans for that matter….that’s their concern. So long as they don’t cross that line which nobody has any business crossing, it’s their call.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2013 08:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1423
Joined  2010-04-22
macgyver - 23 May 2013 01:47 PM

There is a challenge in the courts right now from several companies that want protection from a part of the ACA that requires employers to cover the morning after pill. I could go into the ignorance behind this complaint ( ie: that the pill induces an abortion - it does not) but the real question is whether we should allow exemptions at all. What if a company were owned by the Jahova’s Witnesses. Should they be allowed to deny coverage for blood transfusions to their employees?

Just one more reason why we need universal coverage. Its just another example of insanity in the existing system. You may have serious gaps in your coverage depending on who you work for and you may not even know it.

If an employer is a pacifist, does that mean that they are allowed an exemption from the part of their taxes that would pay for the military?

Of course, health insurance isn’t taxes. Not quite yet. But making it mandatory is pretty close.

Employers should have no say in how their employees make personal health decisions. But, making them pay for health care costs anyway does make it seem like they are being made responsible for their employees’ health decisions, and hence with responsibility may come a say. But . . . this apparent responsibility is an illusion, similar to the concept of pacifists not paying taxes to the military. The services are there for the protection and the betterment of society, whether or not someone agrees or disagrees with the practice.

 Signature 

“All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians.”

- Thelonious Monk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2013 09:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

I like everyone’s responses. 
An underlying dynamic here is the concept of Labor in The United States of America.
If someone is an Employee then they have been conditioned by so many different forces
to understand that their job, their livelihood, is a privilege.
That they are there in their job, but for the sake of their employer.
This lawsuit is just one more example of business owning Congress and therefore having complete control over Labor.
The idea that an employee is just goddamned lucky enough to have a job in the first place is one of the eroding, and endemic features of this nation.
It doesn’t have to be that way. And it shouldn’t be that way. If it wasn’t that way, then we wouldn’t have this lawsuit and many, many others like it.
The title to this thread may as well be: “Should employers be legally allowed to whip their employees with a switch for tardiness?”

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2013 12:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2011-08-15

The title to this thread may as well be: “Should employers be legally allowed to whip their employees with a switch for tardiness?”


No, but corporations have found a way around increased expenses due to Obamacare and to circumnavigate unions. it’s called going ” protean”. This method would cut expenses i.e. medical care, by cutting employees, Leave a token force and outsource the rest of the work. THe supposed magic number of 49 employees could Knock them out of the program. this is already being done BTW in the restaurant business. Employees have been given notice that their hours are being cut to less that 30 and many are being laid off. Hence poor service due to fewer cooks and servers. Those still employed are working fewer hours with a reduced staff and still will not qualify for any benefits. This is legal slavery at it’s worst. Those still employed have no other option but to augment their wages with another job or apply for a public assistance program creating a cycle of poverty that will spiral the already shrinking middle class even further into poverty as the corporations grow fatter.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/small-business-obamacare_n_2581653.html


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2013 02:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  816
Joined  2012-04-25
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 24 May 2013 04:54 PM

Does this mean Chik Fil A shouldn’t be allowed to be closed on Sunday?

Restaurant operating hours don’t effect medical treatment issues or options. If they don’t want to do business on Sundays…or odd numbered Ramadans for that matter….that’s their concern. So long as they don’t cross that line which nobody has any business crossing, it’s their call.

Sure they do. If an employee loses roughly 4 days a month of pay that’s money that can’t go towards doctors visits, medicine, etc.  It’s not as direct as not covering certain medical procedures, but it can have an effect.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2013 03:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3330
Joined  2011-11-04

I’m assuming that our middle class is largely composed of persons who would be classified as employees rather than employers.  But with that assumption, is it just a coincidence that our middle class (which is in severe decline http://www.infowars.com/84-statistics-that-prove-the-decline-of-the-middle-class-is-real-and-that-it-is-getting-worse/ ) was so much better off when there existed a countervailing Communistic world power?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2013 08:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7614
Joined  2007-03-02

I don’t think employers should be allowed to opt out.  One’s medical treatment is between them and their doctor, not them, their doctor, and their employer.  Unless the employer is in the medical field, that employer doesn’t know squat about medicine, esp not their employee’s medical condition or health.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 May 2013 10:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11

Yes, that would be a disaster. One more thing to consider when applying for a job. What if the employer doesn’t like drinking, and won’t let you use your earned money to buy the occasional beer? Or if he believes everyone should ride around in a horse and buggy, or you shouldn’t have stairs in your house? What if they didn’t like your church, or that you have allergies. This is all so absurd!

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 May 2013 12:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2715
Joined  2011-04-24

I think they should be able to opt out of some things. Alternative treatments that don’t have any scientific evidence, for one.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 May 2013 07:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7614
Joined  2007-03-02
mid atlantic - 29 May 2013 12:49 AM

I think they should be able to opt out of some things. Alternative treatments that don’t have any scientific evidence, for one.

Even then, I think people should have freedom of choice.  A holistic dr who uses both is better than one who is completely alternative, in part because a holistic dr uses both scientifically proven methods and methods still needing tests to prove their efficacy and usefulness.  However, if s/he used both at the same time, it would be difficult to prove the alternative was effective.

For example:  My older son is studying to be a massage therapist and according to him massage is an effective treatment for premie babies.  I did some research and it’s not so much the massage, but rather the human touch, which humans thrive on and even need, because we are born social animals.  That in conjunction with scientifically proven treatments could be a boost for babies born premature.  It won’t trigger lung development or alike, but it does give that social aspect that humans need from birth.

In sports injuries, massage allegedly stimulates blood flow to the injured area, thereby assisting in helping it heal and currently used for some people, with certain injuries, in conjunction with physical and rehabilitation/occupational therapy, as well as any medications the doctor Rx.

In his chosen field of study, massage therapy isn’t the only treatment patients are given, but it is combined with other treatments.  Before any massage is given, he inquires about the person’s medical history and any meds they maybe on.  If there is a potential for a clot, then massage therapy isn’t an option, from what I understood.  Certain or recent neck injuries could also exclude them from massage therapy too.

I was skeptical at first, concerning his chosen field, but then I did some research, beyond the information the school gave out to students and their parents.  Of course, when he started at age 20 (now 24) my hands were a bit tied to stop him, if I didn’t agree, but instead of arguing with him, I did research on massage therapy, even on massage therapy v a spa massage, which apparently are two different categories of massage.

My point is, some [alternative] treatments are therapeutic and in conjunction with proven methods, could lead to new viable treatments.  I don’t think we should exclude all things that are considered “alternative”.  Even allegedly proven physical and rehabilitation therapies aren’t necessarily good and medical professionals have been known to change their minds about certain OT and PT methods.  Apparently, massage therapy is becoming a more acceptable course in conjunction with PT and OT and not just something for spas (which is a different kind of massage with a different course of study).  Spa doesn’t have much by way of study of muscles and bones.  Therapeutic massage studies muscles and bones.

Whatever the case, my son does give good massages, providing temporary relief, at least with muscles full of stress.  I still have some skepticism, but I’m still researching it too.  However, the field he is going into is not the end all and be all treatment for sports injury or any other injury patients or even for premature babies.  There’s more to their treatment than that, but it seems to be receiving attention and is becoming part of the Tx within some patients OT and/or PT.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 4
1