Domino's Pizza founder sues federal government over mandated contraception coverage

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
To this, I would say if the country doesn't make it illegal, then NO, the employer has no right to deny "funding" of a legal medical procedure. (And let's face it: is the employer really funding it, or is the insurance simply part of the compensation package, of which "net pay" is going to have to take into account the expense of providing medical coverage?)
There are many legal medical procedures and medications that are not paid for by insurance. The employer denies funding all the time by choosing which plans they provide.

We as a society have to decide what is legal and what is not. If circumcision is not illegal, it should not then fall into some subset of "employer authority."
I'm was asking about circumcision in the case where it is legal (as it is in the US) and the employer strongly disapproves.
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
Thanks for this.

Alternatively, perhaps the system should not be configured such that it becomes an employer's decision to have to make?
Absolutely, I think that would be the easiest way to resolve this issue.

Unfortunately it seems that some sort of single-payer solution is a long way away. Maybe not though. One can hope.

In the meantime, please, employers, please, let's just let individuals make their own medical decisions.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
If an employer provides medical coverage but not dental coverage are they denying their employees dental care? It's a legal and necessary medical procedure, yet I don't see a thread about it.
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
There are many legal medical procedures and medications that are not paid for by insurance. The employer denies funding all the time by choosing which plans they provide.
Yeah, based on medical necessity. But birth control (in my very strong opinion--in the VAST MAJORITY of people's opinions) is necessary. (Side note: I would argue that maybe Viagra could be considered necessary too, psychologically or something.)

I'm was asking about circumcision in the case where it is legal (as it is in the US) and the employer strongly disapproves.
And I'm saying that if it is legal, it's none of the employer's business. One could argue that it's not necessary... but just as many people would argue that it is. Therefore, not the employer's call.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
If an employer provides medical coverage but not dental coverage are they denying their employees dental care? It's a legal and necessary medical procedure, yet I don't see a thread about it.

No one's argued against dental care on moral grounds as far as I know.

There are two different intertwined arguments:

1. Should the government mandate health care coverage from employers at all.

2. If employer health care coverage is mandated, should an employer be able to opt out of covering particular procedures on moral grounds.
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
I know you're not directing the question at me, Richard, but...

1. No.

2. No.

But since we're working with an imperfect system... #2 is more important right now, imo.
 

Chrissy

Bright and Early for the Daily Race
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
7,249
Reaction score
2,005
Location
Mad World
Richard and I agree!

*faints*

:D
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
No one's argued against dental care on moral grounds as far as I know.
It hardly matters. The argument has been made here several times that by denying women COVERAGE in their insurance plan, the employer is denying them ACCESS to care. I'm saying they are two different things and employers do it all the time.

There are two different intertwined arguments:

1. Should the government mandate health care coverage from employers at all.
No.
2. If employer health care coverage is mandated, should an employer be able to opt out of covering particular procedures on moral grounds.
Not Applicable. (Since the answer depends on a Yes answer to the first question.)
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
Yeah, based on medical necessity. But birth control (in my very strong opinion--in the VAST MAJORITY of people's opinions) is necessary. (Side note: I would argue that maybe Viagra could be considered necessary too, psychologically or something.)

And I'm saying that if it is legal, it's none of the employer's business. One could argue that it's not necessary... but just as many people would argue that it is. Therefore, not the employer's call.
Everyone believes the medical procedure or medication they need is necessary, and yet insurance providers and employers (by choosing plans) routinely decide that many of them are not.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
It hardly matters. The argument that has been made here several times that by denying women COVERAGE in their insurance plan, the employer is denying them ACCESS to care.

No.
Not Applicable. (Since the answer depends on a Yes answer to the first question.)

Just to be clear, you only want to discuss the overall question of who should pay for healthcare, and not the questions of particular elements of that health care coverage?

If that's the case, you seem to be saying that the conscience of the employer is irrelevant and should have no bearing in this discussion at all.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
Just to be clear, you only want to discuss the overall question of who should pay for healthcare, and not the questions of particular elements of that health care coverage?

If that's the case, you seem to be saying that the conscience of the employer is irrelevant and should have no bearing in this discussion at all.
Not at all. I've taken an number of positions, although they have become all jumbled up due to the nature of discussion threads.

1. Employers should not be mandated to provide any coverage at all.

2. If they do provide coverage, they should be able to decide what that coverage looks like.

3. Employers should not have to fund medical procedures they find morally objectionable -- whether birth control or circumcision.

4. If employers *don't provide funding* for a certain type of medical procedure or medication, they are not *denying access* to that medical procedure or medication. People can and do have access to unfunded medical procedures and medication all the time -- as in the case of dental or vision coverage and over-the-counter medications prescribe by a doctor.

5. I personally have no problem with insurance funded birth control, abortion, vascectomies, or circumcision.

6. Your right to have a legal medical procedure or medication does not extend to requiring someone else to pay for it.
 
Last edited:

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Not at all. I've taken an number of positions, although they have become all jumbled up due to the nature of discussion threads.

1. Employers should not be mandated to provide any coverage at all.

2. If they do provide coverage, they should be able to decide what that coverage looks like.

3. Employers should not have to fund medical procedures they find morally objectionable -- whether birth control or circumcision.

4. If employers *don't provide funding* for a certain type of medical procedure or medication, they are not *denying access* to that medical procedure or medication. People can and do have access to unfunded medical procedures and medication all the time -- as in the case of dental or vision coverage and over-the-counter medications prescribe by a doctor.

5. I personally have no problem with insurance funded birth control, abortion, vascectomies, or circumcision.

But doesn't all that add up to the ability of an employer to reject all coverage?

Let's take a simple case. Moral objections do not need to have religious origins. It can be argued that your opposition to employer mandates is a moral position. Therefore, if you were an employer could you not say that you refuse to carry medical insurance at all as a matter of conscience?

More broadly, the current US system of health care is predicated and prices are set on the idea that most of the payments will be covered by insurance. Therefore, any procedure not so covered is being priced above the ability of most people to pay for it.

In practical terms, therefore, employers can deny access by refusing to pay for insurance that covers the offending procedures.

There are two problematic sides to the employer mandate.

1. The mandate itself can be argued that it places an unnecessary burden on employers.

2. The morality exception to the mandate can be argued to give too much power to employers.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
But doesn't all that add up to the ability of an employer to reject all coverage?
I believe that is the gist of my first point.

Let's take a simple case. Moral objections do not need to have religious origins. It can be argued that your opposition to employer mandates is a moral position. Therefore, if you were an employer could you not say that you refuse to carry medical insurance at all as a matter of conscience?
Indeed. A Christian Scientist may have a moral objection to medical insurance** and it would be their right to not provide it.

**Please note, I don't know if that is the position of The Church of Christ, Scientist.
 

muravyets

Old revolutionary
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
7,212
Reaction score
974
Location
Massachusetts, USA
Website
www.facebook.com
The existence of other wrong things does not justify the existence of one particular wrong thing. Health insurance plans should not ignore dental care or charge more for it. The fact that they often do does not in any way make it okay to also refuse to cover birth control.

Employers should not get to decide what quality of life their employees will have. The fact that they often get away with or are given power to do so in some ways they shouldn't, does not make it okay for them to also do it in regards to reproductive health care.

Of course, the solution to all this difficulty is obvious, though, right?
 

Haggis

Evil, undead Chihuahua
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
56,217
Reaction score
18,303
Location
A dark, evil place.
The existence of other wrong things does not justify the existence of one particular wrong thing. Health insurance plans should not ignore dental care or charge more for it. The fact that they often do does not in any way make it okay to also refuse to cover birth control.

Employers should not get to decide what quality of life their employees will have. The fact that they often get away with or are given power to do so in some ways they shouldn't, does not make it okay for them to also do it in regards to reproductive health care.

Of course, the solution to all this difficulty is obvious, though, right?
Does this same logic hold for government plans? For example, Medicare does not pay for dental work. Should the government get to decide who gets to keep their teeth and who doesn't?
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Does this same logic hold for government plans? For example, Medicare does not pay for dental work. Should the government get to decide who gets to keep their teeth and who doesn't?

In theory, the government is elected and therefore answerable to the people affetcted by the decision. Businesses are not answerable to their employees.
 

Haggis

Evil, undead Chihuahua
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
56,217
Reaction score
18,303
Location
A dark, evil place.
In theory, the government is elected and therefore answerable to the people affetcted by the decision. Businesses are not answerable to their employees.
So then government gets to set rules for others, but doesn't have to obey those rules themselves. Nice deal.
 

Roger J Carlson

Moderator In Name Only
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
12,799
Reaction score
2,499
Location
West Michigan
In theory, the government is elected and therefore answerable to the people affected by the decision. Businesses are not answerable to their employees.
Sure they are. Business with poor working conditions, low pay, and poor benefits tend to lose (or not attract) the highest quality workers. The converse is also true. Business are organisms with mutually dependent parts.
 

Haggis

Evil, undead Chihuahua
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
56,217
Reaction score
18,303
Location
A dark, evil place.
I don't see how that follows.
I was going back to Mura's earlier post:

Health insurance plans should not ignore dental care or charge more for it.
But Medicare, a government plan, already does ignore dental care. My question was, if employers were required to provide dental coverage like Mura feels they should be, would that same burden apply to government through Medicare.

Your response:

In theory, the government is elected and therefore answerable to the people affetcted by the decision. Businesses are not answerable to their employees.
suggested to me you believed government's decision as to whether to provide or not provide that service need not meet the same standard as required of businesses.

Did I misread you?
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Sure they are. Business with poor working conditions, low pay, and poor benefits tend to lose (or not attract) the highest quality workers. The converse is also true. Business are organisms with mutually dependent parts.

That's nice in theory, but clearly does not fit the facts of business history. Unions would not have formed if businesses responded to the needs of their employees.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,138
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I was going back to Mura's earlier post:

But Medicare, a government plan, already does ignore dental care. My question was, if employers were required to provide dental coverage like Mura feels they should be, would that same burden apply to government through Medicare.

Your response:

suggested to me you believed government's decision as to whether to provide or not provide that service need not meet the same standard as required of businesses.

Did I misread you?

Afraid so. It sounds like we were barking past each other. I was more dealing with the fact that government is meant to have a feedback structue (election) that is supposed to correct its errors.
 

Haggis

Evil, undead Chihuahua
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
56,217
Reaction score
18,303
Location
A dark, evil place.
Afraid so. It sounds like we were barking past each other. I was more dealing with the fact that government is meant to have a feedback structue (election) that is supposed to correct its errors.
My bad, Richard. I'm afraid I had my head so firmly on this kind of stuff that I read more into your response than was there.