Obama Rejects Exemption for Religious Hospitals

[DSenette]

If you have an alternative that doesn't run roughshod over the constitutional rights of a significant minority of the population, great.

Ooo, I know: the one we're talking about! It still doesn't violate their constitutional rights! Any more than requiring a christian bookstore to follow minimum wage laws or pay business taxes does!

Minimum wage laws and business taxes don't conflict at all with Christian morality. When someone actually makes the claim that they do, I'm totally behind you. As it happens, this situation does conflict.

what's the difference between someone having a moral objection to supplying their employees with birth control (as mandated by law) and a moral objection to paying someone a fair wage (as mandated by law)?

[Ghostbear]

Minimum wage laws and business taxes don't conflict at all with Christian morality. When someone actually makes the claim that they do, I'm totally behind you. As it happens, this situation does conflict.

As I pointed out on the prior page, the supreme court has ruled that the government does have the right to not respect religious practice if there is a compelling interest in doing so. In this case, the compelling interest is the health of the citizens of the US. It's also already been ruled that doing something because of your religious beliefs is not good enough justification to make it protected; the religious protection clause is not so broad as people assume it is.

I'm also not sure that conflicting with morality will necessarily infringe upon religious practice.

[Belial]

Minimum wage laws and business taxes don't conflict at all with Christian morality. When someone actually makes the claim that they do, I'm totally behind you. As it happens, this situation does conflict.

Are you now saying it's the government's job to interpret scripture, and only allow the violations of workers' rights that conform to those interpretations?

Because if so, I refer you back to "Render unto caesar".

Nevermind that there's still no one's constitutional rights being violated here...

[quantumcat42]

what's the difference between someone having a moral objection to supplying their employees with birth control (as mandated by law) and a moral objection to paying someone a fair wage (as mandated by law)?

None at all, provided you assume religious institutions have no right to observe their moral code. The Bill of Rights disagrees with you.

Are you now saying it's the government's job to interpret scripture, and only allow the violations of workers' rights that conform to those interpretations?

No, it's the state's job to weigh the harms of allowing the church an exemption with the harms of infringing on their constitutional rights.

If we were talking about a religious organization causing active harm (say, preventing their employees from obtaining birth control by any means), then I could see justification for the state intervening. But at worst, we're talking about passive harm -- not directly supplying their employees with medication the church finds objectionable. There's nothing preventing the employees from getting this medication with their regular wages, if they so choose. Seeking compromise down that route is reasonable. Ignoring the constitution outright is not.

[Ghostbear]

None at all, provided you assume religious institutions have no right to observe their moral code. The Bill of Rights disagrees with you.

As I said in my last post, the supreme court has interpreted the 1st amendment much less broadly than you have.

[DSenette]

what's the difference between someone having a moral objection to supplying their employees with birth control (as mandated by law) and a moral objection to paying someone a fair wage (as mandated by law)?

None at all, provided you assume religious institutions have no right to observe their moral code. The Bill of Rights disagrees with you.

you said

quantumcat42 wrote:Minimum wage laws and business taxes don't conflict at all with Christian morality. When someone actually makes the claim that they do, I'm totally behind you. As it happens, this situation does conflict.

so what if minimum wage laws DID conflict with Christian morality? would it then be fine for them to NOT pay their workers minimum wage?

[EsotericWombat]

If you've been paying attention, quantumcat doesn't appear to think that precedent is important, whether we're talking about existing legal precedent or the precedent that would be established if there was a broader exemption, the implications of which have been expounded upon here and which quantumcat has dismissed as irrelevant.

[sardia]

Would you rather religious institutions push for an exception, or push to have the requirement dropped for everyone?

I reject your dilemma. They're only doing the former because they don't like their chances of succeeding at the latter. If they thought they could get it thrown out for everyone, they'd be doing that. They don't think they can do that, so they're doing this instead.

I concur; a perfect example are the South American countries where the majority of people are catholics. They have harsh laws against contraception and abortions that apply to everyone. Religious institutions claw for as much power as they can get, don't let their minority status in America fool you.

No, it's the state's job to weigh the harms of allowing the church an exemption with the harms of infringing on their constitutional rights.

If we were talking about a religious organization causing active harm (say, preventing their employees from obtaining birth control by any means), then I could see justification for the state intervening. But at worst, we're talking about passive harm -- not directly supplying their employees with medication the church finds objectionable. There's nothing preventing the employees from getting this medication with their regular wages, if they so choose. Seeking compromise down that route is reasonable. Ignoring the constitution outright is not.

That's where the Obama administration is fighting the church on. Inconveniencing people just so they follow Catholic morals and conventions is not ok. I could easily inconvenience churches out of existence or into the margins of society. For example, I could remove tax free status from all religious institutions, remove deductions for donations and charities, or I could start licensing priests to make sure they aren't pedophiles or some other bullshit. None of these would be illegal or unconstitutional. But they would hurt Catholic churches a lot, especially the poorer ones. All of these actions would fall under passive harm, or promoting general welfare of the US. Would these be ok for you?

I have altered your tags.

[Dauric]

None at all, provided you assume religious institutions have no right to observe their moral code. The Bill of Rights disagrees with you.

As I said in my last post, the supreme court has interpreted the 1st amendment much less broadly than you have.

Freedom of speech isn't an absolute, you don't get to advertise that your bottles of tap water cures aging, or incite people to riot... Last time I checked I wasn't able to casually carry a MG3 with a belt of ammo locked in the receiver through Times Square though an absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment would say I should be able to.

Though y'know if religious organizations* get to ignore federal and state laws because we should have an absolutist interpretation of the freedom of religion maybe we should revisit that machinegun thing on the same absolutist principles, maybe allow advertisers to claim that their cola cures diabetes and hair loss...

*And actually let's be more specific here, -Foreign- religious organizations (they may have subsidiary offices in the U.S., but they're still answerable to the hierarchy of a foreign government, Vatican City being a sovereign city-state unto itself) getting to ignore U.S. laws while operating on U.S. territory.

[quantumcat42]

so what if minimum wage laws DID conflict with Christian morality? would it then be fine for them to NOT pay their workers minimum wage?

Pretty sure I already answered that --

When someone actually makes the claim that they do, I'm totally behind you.

and

...it's the state's job to weigh the harms of allowing the church an exemption with the harms of infringing on their constitutional rights.

And Ghostbear, whether or not this is covered by the Free Exercise clause isn't under question. It's just a question of which organizations are exempt. And, to my knowledge, no criminal charges have actually been brought against any religious hospitals or schools, rendering your entire post irrelevant.

Inconveniencing people just so they follow Catholic morals and conventions is not ok.

Again, no one is being forced to follow Catholic morals and conventions. We're talking about forcing our morality on Catholic institutions, not the other way around.

[Ghostbear]

And Ghostbear, whether or not this is covered by the Free Exercise clause isn't under question. It's just a question of which organizations are exempt. And, to my knowledge, no criminal charges have actually been brought against any religious hospitals or schools, rendering your entire post irrelevant.

You're the one calling it their constitutional right, specifically mentioning the bill of rights. What other subset of the constitution were you referring to, if not that one?

How do criminal charges factor in at all? Seriously I.. what? That they haven't had criminal charges brought against them means.. what?

[DSenette]

so what if minimum wage laws DID conflict with Christian morality? would it then be fine for them to NOT pay their workers minimum wage?

Pretty sure I already answered that --

When someone actually makes the claim that they do, I'm totally behind you.

and

...it's the state's job to weigh the harms of allowing the church an exemption with the harms of infringing on their constitutional rights.

then explain how the two are different?

how is not supplying someone with federally mandated medical care different than not supplying them with federally mandated wages? what's the difference between the two? why do you support one but not the other?

[EsotericWombat]

Yes, people are being forced to abide by Catholic morality. If they get their insurance through their Catholic employer (and can't find another job), they are robbed of their ability to make their own healthcare decisions.

As someone who's broke and unemployed and thus would have to take a job at such an institution if one was made available to me, I find the argument that those employees "chose" to work there to be utterly featherbrained.

[quantumcat42]

You're the one calling it their constitutional right, specifically mentioning the bill of rights.

I am, and so is Obama. He approved the exemption for churches. What I'm arguing is, the same rationale applies to the other religious institutions in question.

How do criminal charges factor in at all? Seriously I.. what? That they haven't had criminal charges brought against them means.. what?

From the Wikipedia article you referenced:

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment.

How did you consider that relevant?

how is not supplying someone with federally mandated medical care different than not supplying them with federally mandated wages? what's the difference between the two? why do you support one but not the other?

Because it's possible to supply the same value to employees without tying it directly to treatments a religious institution finds objectionable.

If they get their insurance through their Catholic employer (and can't find another job), they are robbed of their ability to make their own healthcare decisions.

http://www.birthcontrol.com/

[Belial]

I am, and so is Obama. He approved the exemption for churches. What I'm arguing is, the same rationale applies to the other religious institutions in question.

Do explain how a catholic hospital is exactly as important to the free exercise of religion as a catholic church is.

[EsotericWombat]

Assuming that people can afford to pay out of pocket for scripts (when an example of extremely negative consequences for someone who couldn't has already been brought up in this thread) is exactly as stupid as assuming that they can get another job.

[Chen]

Do explain how a catholic hospital is exactly as important to the free exercise of religion as a catholic church is.

Why is the descriptor catholic even needed. Its a hospital and it has a certain function in our society. I mean do we call Bank of America a Catholic bank because its CEO is roman catholic? No its just a damn bank. Churches or Synagogues or Temples or whatever, fine those are clearly religious institutions. Why do we need to consider anything else religious? If their primary function is not religious it shouldn't be a religious institution.

[sardia]

Inconveniencing people just so they follow Catholic morals and conventions is not ok.

Again, no one is being forced to follow Catholic morals and conventions. We're talking about forcing our morality on Catholic institutions, not the other way around.

Nobody is forcing Catholic institutions to follow a morality in the exact way that Catholic institutions aren't forcing their morality onto their employees/students etc etc. You can choose to ignore the ruling, just eject all your non-Catholic persons from the premises, and never let them back in. See the problem? When the government inconveniences you, you cry forcing morality onto others, but when Catholics inconvenience others, you deny that comparison. Don't believe me? The church even stated outright that the "The rule includes an exemption for certain “religious employers,” including houses of worship. But church groups said the exemption was so narrow that it was almost meaningless. A religious employer cannot qualify for the exemption if it employs or serves large numbers of people of a different faith, as many Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies do. "

What's wrong with a little inconvenience? Who cares if Catholic hospitals, schools, and social services have to serve only other Catholics in order to qualify for the exemption? Why is your inconvenience different from the inconvenience of women trying to get birth control pills? Erecting barriers to prevent people from taking actions deemed bad does matter. Don't try to brush it off or redirect it, and then cry when the same thing happens to you.

[Ghostbear]

I am, and so is Obama. He approved the exemption for churches. What I'm arguing is, the same rationale applies to the other religious institutions in question.

If you're opposing it based on constitutional rights*, how is the Free Exercise clause irrelevant? If they don't have that constitutional right (due to legal interpretations of the constitution), then that sort of kills that part of the opposition to this.

From the Wikipedia article you referenced:

Ah, OK- I truly and honestly had no idea why you mentioned criminal charges there. I linked to that article as an example of how the 1st amendment is not interpreted as broadly as your posts suggest you think it is. There are actual, definite limitations on it. As my other link mentioned, compelling interest is one of those limitations; if the government has a compelling interest in doing something that otherwise would not respect the free practice of religion, then they may do so because of that compelling interest. In this case, the compelling interest is the health of the citizens and residents of the US.

* Which you are:

Spoiler:

None at all, provided you assume religious institutions have no right to observe their moral code. The Bill of Rights disagrees with you.

If you have an alternative that doesn't run roughshod over the constitutional rights of a significant minority of the population, great.

[lutzj]

Assuming that people can afford to pay out of pocket for scripts (when an example of extremely negative consequences for someone who couldn't has already been brought up in this thread) is exactly as stupid as assuming that they can get another job.

Which is why companies that refuse to pay for contraceptives could be required to make up the difference in cash.

[quantumcat42]

I am, and so is Obama. He approved the exemption for churches. What I'm arguing is, the same rationale applies to the other religious institutions in question.

Do explain how a catholic hospital is exactly as important to the free exercise of religion as a catholic church is.

"Catholic".
In the other page Ghostbear helpfully linked, there's a case establishing precedent for the idea that "state action had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest, and be narrowly tailored to advance that interest." This state action could be tailored more narrowly, and still advance the state's interest in ensuring workers are fairly compensated. Such a solution is not being sought, however, which is what I'm objecting to.

If you're opposing it based on constitutional rights*, how is the Free Exercise clause irrelevant?

I didn't say it was irrelevant, I said it wasn't under question. It's very relevant. Obama seems to think that not all religious institutions are religious institutions, and I'm disagreeing. The compelling interest case you referenced actually set precedent on the side of religious freedom, overturning an ordinance which didn't meet the compelling interest requirement. Simply stating that there's a compelling interest isn't making a case for it.

sardia, I'm honestly not sure which side you're arguing. About half of what you posted supports my position, although you don't seem to understand what that position actually is. If you're disagreeing with me, please clarify.

[Belial]

"Catholic".

"Hospital".

[quantumcat42]

"Catholic".

"Hospital".

There are both religious and non-religious hospitals. Any Catholic institution is, by definition, religious.

[DSenette]

how is not supplying someone with federally mandated medical care different than not supplying them with federally mandated wages? what's the difference between the two? why do you support one but not the other?

Because it's possible to supply the same value to employees without tying it directly to treatments a religious institution finds objectionable.

i think you're having a reading failure here.

if i were part of a religion that felt that it was morally wrong to pay a person more than $2.75/hr, should i be exempted from the federal minimum wage laws in any business that i opperate?

If they get their insurance through their Catholic employer (and can't find another job), they are robbed of their ability to make their own healthcare decisions.

http://www.birthcontrol.com/

i think you're quite possibly trolling the fuck out of this whole thread. you cannot be this stupid. how about the plethora of other medical treatments that they refuse to cover? or what if sometime down the road they decide that diabetes is a plague handed down by God and refuse to treat that?

quit focusing on the fact that birth control was mentioned and start focusing on the fact that it's an institution requesting the right to be exempt from federal law so that they can apply an arbitrary standard to people who otherwise would not apply that standard to themselves.

[EsotericWombat]

Assuming that people can afford to pay out of pocket for scripts (when an example of extremely negative consequences for someone who couldn't has already been brought up in this thread) is exactly as stupid as assuming that they can get another job.

Which is why companies that refuse to pay for contraceptives could be required to make up the difference in cash.

Which is unnecessarily complicated and unenforceable

[Ghostbear]

I didn't say it was irrelevant, I said it wasn't under question. It's very relevant. Obama seems to think that not all religious institutions are religious institutions, and I'm disagreeing. The compelling interest case you referenced actually set precedent on the side of religious freedom, overturning an ordinance which didn't meet the compelling interest requirement. Simply stating that there's a compelling interest isn't making a case for it.

You were opposing that decision based on constitutional rights, based on your quotes. I was giving examples of how those rights are not so broad, and do have means by which they can be overridden. Regardless of the origins of the compelling interest precedent, it acts as a limitation on that free exercise clause, because it establishes that there are situations under which that exercise can be constrained. That there is a compelling interest does make a case for it, because having a compelling interest is one of the manners in which that right can be determined to not be protected.

Speaking specifically to Obama's rationale, I don't think you can safely call yourself a religious institution just because the ownership happens to be religious- otherwise many private businesses and corporations could make that claim as well. With locations that are fundamentally places of worship, it is clear that they are a religious instititon. A hospital or a school, however, that is open to the public, employs people with no consideration towards their faith, and serves people with no consideration towards their faith, and provides a service that is not inherently religious, doesn't strike me as a religious entity in the least. If they oppose this ruling strongly enough, they even have recourse available to them: transforming them into private entities.

[Belial]

There are both religious and non-religious hospitals. Any Catholic institution is, by definition, religious.

By definition? Whose? A hospital that performs a non-religious (arguably civic) function and employs non-religious people in the service of that function does not strike me as exceptionally vital to the free exercise of a religion.

[sourmìlk]

And all that aside, we should examine the practical implications of abandoning this exemption: people become far more sick and die because "religious" hospitals refuse to perform necessary surgeries.

[Chen]

There are both religious and non-religious hospitals. Any Catholic institution is, by definition, religious.

And why exactly is that? A public hospital should be available to do a public service, as mandated by the government and falling within its regulations. Sure if its a private hospital that can turn people away, I have no problem with them not offering whatever services they want.

[LaserGuy]

Assuming that people can afford to pay out of pocket for scripts (when an example of extremely negative consequences for someone who couldn't has already been brought up in this thread) is exactly as stupid as assuming that they can get another job.

Which is why companies that refuse to pay for contraceptives could be required to make up the difference in cash.

That doesn't help when someone gets ovarian cancer and needs to have their ovaries removed (sterilization), which also wouldn't be covered. Or has a life-threatening pregnancy complication and needs an abortion.

[Iulus Cofield]

Are any of these hospitals for profit? Does anyone think a for profit hospital calling itself religious should be exempt from taxes? If not, why should a religious non-church be treated any differently from any secular non-church? I haven't heard any persuasive arguments so far.

I just don't think religious organizations are or should be above the law. For example, if the law said churches weren't tax exempt, would anyone argue (successfully) that the establishment clause means they can't be taxed? I can't imagine why.

[Dauric]

it's an institution requesting the right to be exempt from federal law so that they can apply an arbitrary standard to people who otherwise would not apply that standard to themselves.

This attitude makes perfect sense in the context of the Catholic church, where a strong centralized hierarchy is more important than the individuals under that hierarchy. This is not however a popular concept in the U.S.

The thing is this isn't David V. Goliath, but this is a clash of two large and influential governments, the U.S. on one side and the Papacy on the other. Moreover the Papacy here isn't representing the interests of it's members, The U.S. government at the very least is declaring that the individuals get to exercise their own discretion (nobody is holding a gun to the employees and telling them to purchase birth control or sterilization procedures with their health benefits), the Papacy is the one exerting "Big Government" controls over the individual citizens here.

And even still more than that, the "Big Government" of the Vatican Papacy doesn't even pretend to represent their individual members in the U.S. jurisdiction (as was detailed earlier in the thread about U.S. Catholics supporting birth control). The mandate is coming on high from a foreign government that doesn't derive it's authority from the people.

What I find so terribly ironic here is that otherwise Libertarian minimal-government arguments are being made in favor of foreign policies being allowed to intervene on the behavior of individuals, when I was rather under the impression that Libertarianism was all about individuals being liberated from higher powers.

[DSenette]

Assuming that people can afford to pay out of pocket for scripts (when an example of extremely negative consequences for someone who couldn't has already been brought up in this thread) is exactly as stupid as assuming that they can get another job.

Which is why companies that refuse to pay for contraceptives could be required to make up the difference in cash.

would everyone working at the hospital get the equivalent amount of compensation for receiving every possible "non-covered" procedure/medicine every year? like, would every woman get the equivalent stipend to cover sterilization, contraception, abortion, etc... etc... etc...? or would they only get compensated for the procedures they request that year?

[sardia]

"Catholic".

"Hospital".

There are both religious and non-religious hospitals. Any Catholic institution is, by definition, religious.

He's saying the hospital part is more important than being Catholic, or religious in general.

Btw, you weren't sure about my position, and my position is that I'm against discrimination towards women, and it outweighs any claims towards religious freedom.
I wonder if the Catholic church will appeal this in any way other than political pressure. Maybe get the Supreme Court involved? They got a shot there cuz of the precedent with firing a non religious teacher in a religious school.

[lutzj]

Btw, you weren't sure about my position, and my position is that I'm against discrimination towards women, and it outweighs any claims towards religious freedom.

I'm pretty sure they don't want to cover sterilization or contraceptives for men either.

Assuming that people can afford to pay out of pocket for scripts (when an example of extremely negative consequences for someone who couldn't has already been brought up in this thread) is exactly as stupid as assuming that they can get another job.

Which is why companies that refuse to pay for contraceptives could be required to make up the difference in cash.

would everyone working at the hospital get the equivalent amount of compensation for receiving every possible "non-covered" procedure/medicine every year? like, would every woman get the equivalent stipend to cover sterilization, contraception, abortion, etc... etc... etc...? or would they only get compensated for the procedures they request that year?

I'm pretty sure the hosptials would rather pay everyone a fixed stipend so they maintain plausible deniability with God.

Assuming that people can afford to pay out of pocket for scripts (when an example of extremely negative consequences for someone who couldn't has already been brought up in this thread) is exactly as stupid as assuming that they can get another job.

Which is why companies that refuse to pay for contraceptives could be required to make up the difference in cash.

Which is unnecessarily complicated and unenforceable

Forcing people to buy a certain type of insurance for their employees is also unnecessarily complicated and unenforceable. What's to stop people from using the loophole of "contraceptives are covered, but you pay up to a $5,000 deductable on each prescription?" I don't see how giving people money so that they can buy things they need isn't the easiest and most morally neutral option for everyone involved.

[LaserGuy]

Forcing people to buy a certain type of insurance for their employees is also unnecessarily complicated and unenforceable. What's to stop people from using the loophole of "contraceptives are covered, but you pay up to a $5,000 deductable on each prescription?" I don't see how giving people money so that they can buy things they need isn't the easiest and most morally neutral option for everyone involved.

A hysterectomy can cost upwards of $10,000. I don't see how giving people a stipend every month is going to help them when they suddenly find out they need major surgery.

[edit]Honestly, the problem is the stupid idea of having your health plan tied to your employer in the first place.

[Xeio]

Forcing people to buy a certain type of insurance for their employees is also unnecessarily complicated and unenforceable. What's to stop people from using the loophole of "contraceptives are covered, but you pay up to a $5,000 deductable on each prescription?" I don't see how giving people money so that they can buy things they need isn't the easiest and most morally neutral option for everyone involved.

The requirement is that they are covered without cost to employee. Also, this would be as part of any employer-insurer dialog (which they already have to do), and probably make it easier in that every single employer would require these exact policies. So I'm unsure why you think this would be more complicated than the existing setup (unless your employer didn't offer you any health insurance to begin with).

[Dauric]

Forcing people to buy a certain type of insurance for their employees is also unnecessarily complicated and unenforceable. What's to stop people from using the loophole of "contraceptives are covered, but you pay up to a $5,000 deductable on each prescription?" I don't see how giving people money so that they can buy things they need isn't the easiest and most morally neutral option for everyone involved.

The thing is insurance isn't like a direct payment. Insurance takes a smaller overall amount from everyone to tailor the needs to the individuals. Employee A needs a box of condoms, employee B needs heart surgery, and employee C needs chemo and radiation therapy to deal with widespread malignant tumors. None of their needs is identical, and there's no way that any employer could pay out the benefits for every employee to be given major cancer therapy.

So the insurance company steps in to deal with making the payouts. The employer pays $XXX.xx per employee, and the insurance company deals with the specific payouts and the bureaucracy of dealing with the payments. The insurance company does this for multiple organizations which allows them to take advantage of the 'comparative advantage' of specializing at the medical payout tasks, and the organizations they provide insurance to can focus on their own businesses.

[DSenette]

Assuming that people can afford to pay out of pocket for scripts (when an example of extremely negative consequences for someone who couldn't has already been brought up in this thread) is exactly as stupid as assuming that they can get another job.

Which is why companies that refuse to pay for contraceptives could be required to make up the difference in cash.

would everyone working at the hospital get the equivalent amount of compensation for receiving every possible "non-covered" procedure/medicine every year? like, would every woman get the equivalent stipend to cover sterilization, contraception, abortion, etc... etc... etc...? or would they only get compensated for the procedures they request that year?

I'm pretty sure the hosptials would rather pay everyone a fixed stipend so they maintain plausible deniability with God.

Assuming that people can afford to pay out of pocket for scripts (when an example of extremely negative consequences for someone who couldn't has already been brought up in this thread) is exactly as stupid as assuming that they can get another job.

Which is why companies that refuse to pay for contraceptives could be required to make up the difference in cash.

Which is unnecessarily complicated and unenforceable

Forcing people to buy a certain type of insurance for their employees is also unnecessarily complicated and unenforceable. What's to stop people from using the loophole of "contraceptives are covered, but you pay up to a $5,000 deductable on each prescription?" I don't see how giving people money so that they can buy things they need isn't the easiest and most morally neutral option for everyone involved.

huh? you don't have to force anyone to have a "certain type" of health insurance unless there are people claiming that they need different types of health insurances. if everyone applies the same level of health insurance (i.e. a policy must provide for preventative care, and contraceptives, etc... etc... etc..) then there are no "types" of health care.


also, you think it's a better idea for the hospital to provide it's employees with health insurance that covers everything they're ok with, and then hand everyone in the building a check for the maximum possible cost of one person having ALL of the procedures they don't cover? that could be a check to each employee for over $20,000, which they wouldn't be required to spend on health care to begin with.

do you know how much a company normally spends per year per employee for full coverage health insurance? i can assure you it's not $20k per employee per year.

[lutzj]

A hysterectomy can cost upwards of $10,000. I don't see how giving people a stipend every month is going to help them when they suddenly find out they need major surgery.

I'd like to think that major, life-saving surgery due to organ failure or cancer would fall into a different category, even though it does technically prevent one from having kids as a side effect.

[edit]Honestly, the problem is the stupid idea of having your health plan tied to your employer in the first place.

Agreed.

The thing is insurance isn't like a direct payment. Insurance takes a smaller overall amount from everyone to tailor the needs to the individuals. Employee A needs a box of condoms, employee B needs heart surgery, and employee C needs chemo and radiation therapy to deal with widespread malignant tumors. None of their needs is identical, and there's no way that any employer could pay out the benefits for every employee to be given major cancer therapy.

Employee A's costs are much smaller, less medically necessary, and more expectable than B's or C's. Contraception is something you can reasonably expect people to be able to buy on their own once you've given them money for it.