Employer's right to line item veto coverage

[JoyJuice]

The employer should have the right to offer whatever coverage he desires. The employee then has at least four options: Negotiate for better coverage, refuse employment, purchase supplemental coverage, or pay out of pocket for non-covered care. This aligns with a concept we call freedom

From what I understand the employee still has those freedoms.

 

[MachZer0]

From what I understand the employee still has those freedoms.

In the current circumstance, the employer has lost his freedom.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

No it wouldn't.

It would shift it to the government.

The best move for fixing health care out of this administration was passing a bill that's more than twice as thick as my copy of 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.' Quite obviously, since government regulation as created the mess, we need more government regulation to fix it.

Yes, it would shift the responsibility of providing healthcare to the public sector. No church or employer would ever again have to worry about providing their employees with medical care they have moral objections to. Problem solved.

 

[JoyJuice]

In the current circumstance, the employer has lost his freedom.

Great, now that we have established the employee still has those freedoms, and as you elude to now a mandate for employer healthcare, should those employers be allowed to pick and choose what they will or won't provide?

 

[MachZer0]

Great, now that we have established the employee still has those freedoms, and as you elude to now a mandate for employer healthcare, should those employers be allowed to pick and choose what they will or won't provide?

When I said

The employer should have the right to offer whatever coverage he desires...

What did you not understand?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Yes, it would shift the responsibility of providing healthcare to the public sector. No church or employer would ever again have to worry about providing their employees with medical care they have moral objections to. Problem solved.

Well, yes, actually, they would, because shifting health care to the public sector would cause their taxes to pay for it. Basically, it would use the threat of men with guns to make them pay...assuming it's the federal government we're discussing. (If you don't think taxes are the threat of violence, try not paying them and see what happens.)

Which, of course, would likely result in them protesting how their tax dollars are spent.

 

[JoyJuice]

When I said



What did you not understand?

Ok, great.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

Well, yes, actually, they would, because shifting health care to the public sector would cause their taxes to pay for it. Basically, it would use the threat of men with guns to make them pay...assuming it's the federal government we're discussing. (If you don't think taxes are the threat of violence, try not paying them and see what happens.)

Which, of course, would likely result in them protesting how their tax dollars are spent.

Nope, it doesn't work like that. Plenty of people had a moral objection to having their tax dollars spent to blow up Iraq...Bush said screw their religious liberty.