[The E]

He who pays gets to decide. Thats why this ruling makes sense under US system but not in European system.

Certainly. But do note that I believe the american system to be fundamentally broken, and this issue right here to be symptomatic of said brokenness.

[MP-Ryan]

Oh right, you have no awnser. If you did, you'd have presented it.

Read it again.  Not only did I point out how facile your argument is concerning why contraceptives should not be covered, I also pointed out the very good policy reasons for why employer health insurance should be mandated to provide a full level of coverage and not pick and choose what they ideologically agree with.

The United States does not have a fully socialized medical system, and in fact relies on employers providing medical benefits - without employers providing coverage, the number of Americans without health insurance would be far greater than the 48.6 million people (approximately 15% of your total population) that were without prior to the ACA.  The data posted previously already highlights why this is "bad."  Now, when people have to pay out of pocket, several things happen:
1.  They destroy their economic prosperity.  This is bad, particularly if these people are middle class.  The United States has a service economy and relies heavily on purchasing by individuals.  This is why the Fed has gone the quantitative easing route since 2009.
2.  In extreme cases, medical bills lead to bankruptcy.  This has a duplicative effect - not only do people lose their purchasing ability to support themselves, NOW they qualify for government assistance programs.  The wonderfully ironic thing about assistance programs in the US is that they provide just enough to ensure it is very difficult for people to escape the income status that qualifies them for them.
3.  People who are unable to pay their hospital bills don't - the US system does not turn people away.  That said, that cost is then passed onto government and other health insurers in the form of higher taxes and higher premiums.  For every person without insurance, YOU pay more for your insurance.
4.  The final possibility according to free market theory (which has no validity in the real world, but I cover it here because the previous three points are actually a fiscally conservative argument and I might as well complete it) is that wages for the employed go up to help cover costs because the market labour supply demands it.  Now, there are all kinds of economic reasons why this doesn't happen in the real world which have been covered on HLP before, but the free market is essentially not the great arbitrator that some economists in the past thought it was.  There is no real-world data that shows when a benefit is eliminated (particularly on grounds as patently ridiculous as these) that wages adjust to compensate.  In reality, that tends to lead to a greater race to the bottom (for examples, see defined-benefit pensions in the private sector).

In short, if employers do not provide health insurance, your economic system falls apart unless the government provides socialized insurance (which, judging by your political positions thus far, I'm hazarding a guess you don't want to see).  When employers get to pick and choose what aspects of basic healthcare - and contraceptives are absolutely an aspect of basic healthcare - are covered on religious grounds, the tab is ultimately picked up by the US economy.  If you are as ideologically "conservative" as your previous post seems to indicate, you should have a problem with that.

[bobbtmann]

How many people on this thread are men? Our health is not as affected by the availability of birth control as that of women. Women should be free from dictates of those who have power over them (ie. their employers).

On the topic of freedom, in Alberta we have similar arguments thrusted at us by the conservatives.

"Employers should have a right to their religious views"
"Doctors should have a right to their religious views"
"Government employees should have a right to their religious views"

As individual people, this is true. But doctors, civil servants, and bosses have a power over those around them. They have the power to push their views on others, deny them services, treat them unfairly. Why should they be free to do this, and I have no freedom from them?

[KyadCK]

* watsisname steps in

Kyad, MPRyan analyzed your argument, pointed out its flaws, and even provided data to support his points.  I wholly grant that the manner in which he did so could have been a lot better, but dismissing his post as stupidity, asserting that he has no answer, and asking that he leave does not make for a strong response either.  It makes it look like you're the one struggling.

People on both sides of this issue should try to calm down.  Agitated posts are not very compelling ones and will only make things worse.

* watsisname steps out.

He compared getting pregneant to cancer. He also completely ignored anything below the line. If you would like to point out where exactly he made even an atempt to say why the buisness should be the one to pay for it... I must be blind, I can not see it.

He did not analize anything, nor rebute any claim. He has shown no reason that the buisness should be responsible. As such, he's just Fox News (Sensationalist and has no point).

Oh right, you have no awnser. If you did, you'd have presented it.

Read it again.

I did. You failed to read, let alone rebute, the entire argument. As such, I "Failed" to read this one beyond this line.

Note how The_E actually presented an argument and explained things. Take a lesson.

I'd like to point out that a lot of girls I've known have taken/take birth control for regulation of their cycles, rather than preventing pregnancy. I hear having a period is an absolute pain.

However, if the argument is only about preventing pregnancy, for the insurance company, paying for birth control is much less expensive than paying for pregnancy. And if someone is not pregnant they do not get maternity leave, and are still able to work full time. That's the whole point of providing benefits for employees, happier, healthier, more motivated individuals do more and better work.

Also health insurance usually covers vasectomies. Double standard? 

So why should business care? I'm too tired right now to put something coherent down. Will come back to this later

I didn't say "care", I asked why they should be involved at all. "Caring" is a whole different thing. The_E explained why, at least in Germany's system (which applies to most of europe I guess?) why they are.

Right, so, you have no argument. Got it. That's the only reason you would do something as stupid as you just did.

One more time: Why is it the company's problem?

If it's government handled, then your taxes should cover it. If it's privately handled, then your monthly payments handle it. Why is this the problem, at all, of the business in question? Why should the business be forced to pay for it? Why?

Oh right, you have no awnser. If you did, you'd have presented it.

So, MP, go away. Bring out someone who can present an actual argument, like Battuta or The_E or Zacam.

Because something critical as health care should not be a multi-tiered system. The basic coverage available to everyone should provide for adequate care in all areas, regardless of how much money they make. That's the socialist perspective on it.

Here in Germany, the Employer covers half the medical insurance cost for his employees (the other half is deducted from the wage as part of taxes etc). This is because health care is ****ing expensive, and also because it's in the Employer's best interest to have healthy workers who do not have to worry about something silly like "Can I afford a visit to the Doctor this month".

Given that our system (and the equivalent system of other countries) is much more efficient than yours, both in terms of per-capita costs and in keeping the workforce healthy, I can see no real argument for keeping the Employers out of the loop.

Oh, and I fully agree with MP-Ryan, needless to say.

Thankyou. That explains why the buisness should be involved from the European point of view.

Note however that we did not get a "tax hike" to cover any of that. Our system is not set up for that at all.

So now we have businesses that are refusing to hire more people desipe the ever so slightly improving economy becasue they don't want to cover those costs. We have buisnesses that refuse to hire full time employees becasue if they can keep them under 30 hours, they don't have to pay for this. People can not get jobs becasue of this, and the ones that can don't get this anyway. It isn't truly universal, and as with all our tax laws, there are easily exploited loopholes to avoid doing it anyway.

If you actually believe getting cancer is the same as getting pregnant... Whatever, more power to you. That is all Ryan actually claimed in his first responce in between bouts of thinking he's god and knows best for everyopne, including the ones who don't want his way.

He who pays gets to decide. Thats why this ruling makes sense under US system but not in European system.

Certainly. But do note that I believe the american system to be fundamentally broken, and this issue right here to be symptomatic of said brokenness.

If we were going to copy the European system for this, we would have to actually do it right. The current way is... bad.

Obamacare is not the "medical care for all" that you have in europe, so cheering for it, as it actually harms us due to it's very poor implementation, is foolish. You can see the loopholes in it already from this threrad alone, do you honestly think this system will be any less stupid than our tax system?

-----------------------------------------------

As for personal views, I do belive that someone who does not get hurt as much should not have to pay as much as someone who gets hurt all the time. Why should the ones who take care of themselves pick up the tab for those who don't? So yes, I do not believe in a "cover everything" universal plan with one cost for everyone, since if I break a bone once every 10 years I am less of a drain on the "Medical pool" than someone who breaks one every 2. As such, I should pay less.

Few Europeans seem to understand this. And that's fine. But understand that we have two completely different systems, and this "attempt" is certainly not the same as what you get anyway.

[NGTM-1R]

He compared getting pregneant to cancer. .

You haven't established he was wrong to make that comparison, or why it would be wrong to. (Indeed, from an employer's standpoint the only thing that matters is lost productivity, so all illnesses are more or less the same as a pregnancy.) Until you do, everything you've said is useless and his statement stands by default.

You can't merely state these things. You must demonstrate them. What MP-Ryan did was demonstrate that the foundationals of your argument do not make sense from the business standpoint. (What you have failed to do is demonstrate why his statement was wrong.) That's why he ignored the rest of it; it was irrelevant if the parts he discussed didn't stand.

[KyadCK]

He compared getting pregneant to cancer. .

You haven't established he was wrong to make that comparison, or why it would be wrong to. (Indeed, from an employer's standpoint the only thing that matters is lost productivity, so all illnesses are more or less the same as a pregnancy.) Until you do, everything you've said is useless and his statement stands by default.

And you failed to read too. What was said right after that? Here's a hint:

He also completely ignored anything below the line. If you would like to point out where exactly he made even an atempt to say why the buisness should be the one to pay for it... I must be blind, I can not see it.

Would you like to actually see the entirety of the post he so conviniently snipped too? Read it all perhaps? Provide a less useless and sensationalist responce then he did?

[MP-Ryan]

KyadCK, I see you still haven't actually realized why comparing pregnancy and cancer is perfectly valid in this context, nor bothered to actually click the link to the data that renders your entire post meaningless, nor actually read where I spelled out the economics for you after you failed to read the previous post which - at last count - at least five other people have read and understood, then posted in this thread.

At this point, you have been provided with a coherent argument and raw data, neither of which you have responded to, instead choosing to continue on with this belief that you've presented a rational argument (you haven't, since its all your opinion without a shred of supporting information) and you haven't gotten a response (you have).  I have now spelled it out for you twice - address the argument.

[KyadCK]

KyadCK, I see you still haven't actually realized why comparing pregnancy and cancer is perfectly valid in this context, nor bothered to actually click the link to the data that renders your entire post meaningless, nor actually read where I spelled out the economics for you after you failed to read the previous post which - at last count - at least five other people have read and understood, then posted in this thread.

At this point, you have been provided with a coherent argument and raw data, neither of which you have responded to, instead choosing to continue on with this belief that you've presented a rational argument (you haven't, since its all your opinion without a shred of supporting information) and you haven't gotten a response (you have).  I have now spelled it out for you twice - address the argument.

I said that Businesses should not be required to pay for any health insurance. The topic on hand is for the morning after pill, which I added an extra section for.

Your entire argument that "Pregnant = Cancer" is a starwman argument, and I will not be pulled into such stupididty. Get over it.

[NGTM-1R]

He also completely ignored anything below the line.

Would you like to actually see the entirety of the post he so conviniently snipped too?

That's why he ignored the rest of it; it was irrelevant if the parts he discussed didn't stand.

You're stating again. You're not demonstrating. You're not offering evidence for your position. You have to demonstrate via evidence you are correct. You can't state it or nobody will take you seriously. (And rightly so.)

Worse yet, you are making a very obviously irrelevant straw-man statement, by pretending I did not address why MP-Ryan ignored the rest of your post when no such thing happened. It was addressed. I can quote it being addressed and I just did. You're making a decision to argue in bad faith, to obviously argue in bad faith, so why should we address you at all?

[MP-Ryan]

Actually, you said this:

Pay for your own anti-pregancy stuff, geeze. No company should ever cover that anyway. It plays no role in your health as a human being. If you can't afford condoms/pills/whatever, then simply stop screwing people (shouldn't be hard... If you can't afford that there's no way you can afford booze or to go to a club), or only screw people who have their own. It's not a right to be able to **** with no side effect, and it's certainly a very very stupid ass thing to make a company pay for. Seriously, could you imagine yourself walking into a Walgreens, getting a box of condoms, and saying "don't worry, my job covers this"? Same thing. 

Next thing you know, jobs will be forced to cover Dental and plastic surgery too. 

---------------------------------------------

Does everyone here understand that, atleast in the US, some jobs don't cover any health insurance? That such a thing, at least until obamacare, was simply a perk of the job you had if it did?

Why are companies being forced to cover anything anyway? Unless you get hurt while on the job or doing work for them, it's your own damn fault, or whoever hurt you, but not the company.

Gov covered medical: Taxes pay for it.
Private medical: monthly payments pay for it.

Not sure where the privately owned companies come into play here. Forcing them to cover it if you're over 30 hours (obamacare) will simply make them either;

A: Not hire you because they don't want the cost.
B: Hire you, but make you part-time under 30 hours, cutting you off from all other benefits too.
C: Take it out of your salary.

None of the above are good, and in this particular case there is zero reason the job should cover something that is so completely not related to the job if they don't want to. The fact they had to pull the religion card is just sad.

I honestly can not see how this becomes the employer's responsibility at all...

Which can be summed up as:
- Pregnancy isn't a real illness and it shouldn't be up to the employer to cover it.
- Companies shouldn't have to cover medical expenses anyway.

At which point I demonstrated why pregnancy is no different than any other medical condition, then gave you a link to data that shows exactly why employers should have to cover medical expenses.

After that, you then ignored the entire rebuttal.

Then I laid out, point-by-point, the exact economic reasons why employer-coverage is necessary in the United States unless you want to switch to a socialized system, and why your medical system is so bloody expensive compared to literally every other democracy for which there is data.

And then you ignored all of it.

And now here we are.  Oh, right - three other forumites told you what you've missed and you ignored them too.

Now, if you'd like to take your fingers out of your ears and quit with the "lalalalalala" approach to debate, I'd be happy to address any response you'd like to put together to the points already raised - with supporting evidence.  Until then, I'll let everyone else deal with you as they see fit.

[The E]

Your entire argument that "Pregnant = Cancer" is a starwman argument, and I will not be pulled into such stupididty. Get over it.

Given that MP-Ryan and others have stated and shown that it isn't a strawman argument, you would be wise to reconsider your stance, and actually try to understand what they are saying and why.

As a moderator, I would advise you to chill a bit. Right now, you're digging yourself into an argumentative hole that is very hard to escape from. You're starting to debate the people, not the points they raise, and that's not going to do you or the points you're trying to make any good. Take a step back from your beliefs, and try to see the other side of the debate here.

[KyadCK]

Your entire argument that "Pregnant = Cancer" is a starwman argument, and I will not be pulled into such stupididty. Get over it.

Given that MP-Ryan and others have stated and shown that it isn't a strawman argument, you would be wise to reconsider your stance, and actually try to understand what they are saying and why.

As a moderator, I would advise you to chill a bit. Right now, you're digging yourself into an argumentative hole that is very hard to escape from. You're starting to debate the people, not the points they raise, and that's not going to do you or the points you're trying to make any good. Take a step back from your beliefs, and try to see the other side of the debate here.

I said I do not want any buisness to pay any health insurance. I added that paying for things like condoms and the morning after pill are paticularly stupid due to the thread topic. He is trying to invalidate my claim by saying that pregnancy is no different from concer, so it should count.

One more time, becasue no one gets it; I said I do not want any buisness to pay any health insurance.

What, exactly, does his claim prove? What does it have to do with what I said? How does it invalidate me at all?

It doesn't. So if any of you would like to look at the fact that agreeing with what he said does not mean disagreeing with what I said, I would welcome you to try again. Step away from your beliefs, The_E, and see what was writen.

If you would like to know how calm I am, I'm always on IRC and would love to explain to you in realtime if you like. The argument Ryan is presenting is like someone saying "Cheese sucks" (me) and everyone else going "Ya, well, Cheddar is as bad as Swiss, so you're wrong". Do you understand?

He also completely ignored anything below the line.

Would you like to actually see the entirety of the post he so conviniently snipped too?

That's why he ignored the rest of it; it was irrelevant if the parts he discussed didn't stand.

You're stating again. You're not demonstrating. You're not offering evidence for your position. You have to demonstrate via evidence you are correct. You can't state it or nobody will take you seriously. (And rightly so.)

Worse yet, you are making a very obviously irrelevant straw-man statement, by pretending I did not address why MP-Ryan ignored the rest of your post when no such thing happened. It was addressed. I can quote it being addressed and I just did. You're making a decision to argue in bad faith, to obviously argue in bad faith, so why should we address you at all?

Right, so let's look at my "argument".

Pay for your own anti-pregancy stuff, geeze. No company should ever cover that anyway. It plays no role in your health as a human being. If you can't afford condoms/pills/whatever, then simply stop screwing people (shouldn't be hard... If you can't afford that there's no way you can afford booze or to go to a club), or only screw people who have their own. It's not a right to be able to **** with no side effect, and it's certainly a very very stupid ass thing to make a company pay for. Seriously, could you imagine yourself walking into a Walgreens, getting a box of condoms, and saying "don't worry, my job covers this"? Same thing. 

Next thing you know, jobs will be forced to cover Dental and plastic surgery too. 

---------------------------------------------

Does everyone here understand that, atleast in the US, some jobs don't cover any health insurance? That such a thing, at least until obamacare, was simply a perk of the job you had if it did?

Why are companies being forced to cover anything anyway? Unless you get hurt while on the job or doing work for them, it's your own damn fault, or whoever hurt you, but not the company.

Gov covered medical: Taxes pay for it.
Private medical: monthly payments pay for it.

Not sure where the privately owned companies come into play here. Forcing them to cover it if you're over 30 hours (obamacare) will simply make them either;

A: Not hire you because they don't want the cost.
B: Hire you, but make you part-time under 30 hours, cutting you off from all other benefits too.
C: Take it out of your salary.

None of the above are good, and in this particular case there is zero reason the job should cover something that is so completely not related to the job if they don't want to. The fact they had to pull the religion card is just sad.

I honestly can not see how this becomes the employer's responsibility at all...

What exactly do I have to prove again? Most of my "Argument" is questions.

[Scotty]

Congratulations, Kyad, you have an opinion.  That does not entitle you to summarily dismiss others' opinions, to ignore actual discussion directed toward you, and deliberately discuss the issue in bad faith.

We get that you don't want a company to pay health insurance.  Others disagree.  There in lies the potential for discussion.  However, you are refusing to discuss, and instead choosing to insult and avoid any actual discussion by instead trumpeting your beliefs over everything else in the conversation.

Much closer to what's actually happening, MP-Ryan is saying "Cheddar and Swiss are both kinds of cheese" and you're yelling loudly "I DON'T LIKE CHEESE AND NEITHER SHOULD MY BOSS".

[KyadCK]

Congratulations, Kyad, you have an opinion.  That does not entitle you to summarily dismiss others' opinions, to ignore actual discussion directed toward you, and deliberately discuss the issue in bad faith.

We get that you don't want a company to pay health insurance.  Others disagree.  There in lies the potential for discussion.  However, you are refusing to discuss, and instead choosing to insult and avoid any actual discussion by instead trumpeting your beliefs over everything else in the conversation.

Much closer to what's actually happening, MP-Ryan is saying "Cheddar and Swiss are both kinds of cheese" and you're yelling loudly "I DON'T LIKE CHEESE AND NEITHER SHOULD MY BOSS".

No, you understand that. So did The_E, and he explained too. Ryan never got the picture.

The grand majority of my my first post was asking. The rest was explaining why what Ryan said had nothing to do with what I said. Which it still doesn't.

I'm saying, fairly calmy actually, "I don't like cheese, so why do I care if Cheddar and Swiss are the same?" and "Why should my boss be forced to like cheese?"

You on the other hand seem to think that I said that buisnesses should never pay for anything. Unfortunetly for that arguemnt, I've said repeatedly that they should not be forced to pay for anything. I've also said that jobs have for the most part had perks that included health insurance, but they were just that, perks.

Care to revise what you "think" I'm saying?

As for my inability to discuss... I take it you didn't actually read any of my responce after The_E explained. Of course, my arguement didn't immediately change to "Hey this is great!" but you know what? Yours didn't change to dislike cheese either, now did it.

[swashmebuckle]

Pregnancy is to Cancer as Cheese is to:

A) Cheese
B) Analogy
C) American Cheese
D) B and B

[bobbtmann]

Well, cancer is when you have a bunch of cells growing in your body, maybe making a tumor shaped lump.

Pregnancy is when you have a bunch of cells growing in your body, making a baby shaped lump.

[MP-Ryan]

Well, cancer is when you have a bunch of cells growing in your body, maybe making a tumor shaped lump.

Pregnancy is when you have a bunch of cells growing in your body, making a baby shaped lump.

It doesn't even have to be thought of on that level of detail.  Cancer is a not-always-preventable medical condition that arises only in part due to the behaviour of the individual diagnosed with it.  So is pregnancy, and the maternal complications that can result from it.  One is not quantitatively different from the other in this regard.

It's amusing that Kyad is now backtracking from the whole pregnancy argument in the first place as if he thinks that I haven't also addressed his belief that employers shouldn't pay for health care.  Even if he wants to correct his original post, that ship has sailed.  Now he's just trying to obfuscate and avoid addressing the uncomfortable realization that he hasn't provided any sort of foundation for that argument, whereas there exists quite a bit of data that clearly shows his position is economically and medically unsound which was provided on page one in a convenient link.  Now he's on the I-can't-argue-the-facts-the-opposite-side-is-presenting-so-I'll-just-attack-the-presenter-instead.  I could give a **** at this point.  I think it's been made abundantly clear that KyadCK is unable to support his assertions and is now just trying (and failing) to save face.

So on that note... I'll post again if someone actually adds anything new to the discussion, but I suspect further attempts to convince KyadCK to actually debate are basically pointless at this juncture.

[NGTM-1R]

The grand majority of my my first post was asking. The rest was explaining why what Ryan said had nothing to do with what I said. Which it still doesn't.

Right, so, you have no argument. Got it. That's the only reason you would do something as stupid as you just did.

One more time: Why is it the company's problem?

If it's government handled, then your taxes should cover it. If it's privately handled, then your monthly payments handle it. Why is this the problem, at all, of the business in question? Why should the business be forced to pay for it? Why?

Oh right, you have no awnser. If you did, you'd have presented it.

So, MP, go away. Bring out someone who can present an actual argument, like Battuta or The_E or Zacam.

There's not a word of explanation in this post. There's a lot of opinion. You're trying to assert that businesses shouldn't have to pay for healthcare, but there are two problems with that. The first is that businesses do pay for healthcare, so you're arguing against the existence of something that is real. The second is that it's already been addressed why it makes good sense for businesses to pay for healthcare, as time sick (or pregnant) is time not working for the business.

So you haven't explained why MP-Ryan is strawmanning. It's been repeatedly explained why he's not. It's been repeatedly explained to you that your argument is not only false in comparison to reality, but that it would actually serve the interests of the business, as a business, to cover these costs. You still have not addressed these points, thus they continue to stand by default.

You're not discussing. You're stating a position by route. Again.

[Phantom Hoover]

It doesn't even have to be thought of on that level of detail.  Cancer is a not-always-preventable medical condition that arises only in part due to the behaviour of the individual diagnosed with it.  So is pregnancy, and the maternal complications that can result from it.  One is not quantitatively different from the other in this regard.

???

Except in cases of rape, pregnancy "arises due to the behaviour of the individual diagnosed with it". I mean, I'm aligned with you on this issue, but Jesus this analogy is an absolutely awful way of expressing your point, and you completely deserve the page of stupid quibbling that's just taken place. Frankly the rest of you who dogpiled on Kyad should be embarrassed with yourselves; just because you agree with the point an argument is making doesn't mean you should go on the defensive when someone criticises it.

[Scotty]

Phantom Hoover:

It is indeed "Only in part" because getting pregnant is not a sure thing even without contraceptives, and a female (unfortunately) does not get to decide whether she's especially fertile on a given day before having sex.  There's a huge amount of chance involved with it, and as such, that analogy is entirely accurate.

Further, no one dogpiled on Kyad because we disagreed or agreed with any argument presented; Kyad was chastised (by several posters with histories of not doing such things, including at least two mods) because he was arguing in poor form and poor faith.