Gay and Lesbian Marriage....

[walk in the woods]

Sorry I don't buy the "I am persecuted, because I can't interfere and force my religious beliefs into the lives of others that I don't even personally know, and I am not free to persecute whom I deem worthy of my persecution". That argument just doesn't fly..

Why should an employer be forced to accept an employee's political/religious views? Let the market rule. If an employer doesn't offer the benefits you are looking for, work elsewhere. If enough people feel that way then that employer will be forced to shutdown on its own. Having the government force their version of morality on everybody is the problem, not the solution.

 

Separately, as a resident of Illinois, our bankrupt corrupt state government has enough issues already. Morality is certainly not their strong suit.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Sorry I don't buy the "I am persecuted, because I can't interfere and force my religious beliefs into the lives of others that I don't even personally know, and I am not free to persecute whom I deem worthy of my persecution". That argument just doesn't fly..

"Why should an employer be forced to accept an employee's political/religious views?"

 

They aren't. They're providing insurance coverage.

 

" If an employer doesn't offer the benefits you are looking for, work elsewhere."

 

You can advocate for that scheme; that isn't what we currently have in the US.

[packsaddle]

I've written this before and I will write it again: employers should not purchase or provide, nor should they be expected to purchase or provide, health or any other kind of insurance for their employees. Instead, employees should be paid fairly and then they should make those decisions however they choose to. If they want to form health-care coops or even employee-union insurance companies that is just fine. But the employers should be out of this aspect of their employees' lives.

[Stosh]

I've written this before and I will write it again: employers should not purchase or provide, nor should they be expected to purchase or provide, health or any other kind of insurance for their employees. Instead, employees should be paid fairly and then they should make those decisions however they choose to. If they want to form health-care coops or even employee-union insurance companies that is just fine. But the employers should be out of this aspect of their employees' lives.

Even if an employee offers medical benefits, one does not have to accept it, nor pay for it. Just don't sign up for it and then go and get it elsewhere. This option has been around for a long time. If both spouses work, they just pick the one with the best benefits that they want and the other doesn't sign up for the benefit.

[packsaddle]

I've written this before and I will write it again: employers should not purchase or provide, nor should they be expected to purchase or provide, health or any other kind of insurance for their employees. Instead, employees should be paid fairly and then they should make those decisions however they choose to. If they want to form health-care coops or even employee-union insurance companies that is just fine. But the employers should be out of this aspect of their employees' lives.

It should not be an 'option'. An employer should not invest in personnel and bureaucracy to manage these kinds of HR expenses and the employer should not offer any employer 'contribution' to the employee as a 'benefit'. The entirety of those expenses and costs should not be borne by an employer in the first place.

 

Employees should either accept or decline their pay and then pay all of the costs for health insurance that they purchase themselves, or failing that, they should pay for their own health care costs.

 

The idea that one spouse can 'cover' the health of another through whichever employer offers the best benefits is just gaming the current system of employer-sponsored health coverage. There should be no such thing and no such choice to be made in the first place.

[King Ding Dong]

I've written this before and I will write it again: employers should not purchase or provide, nor should they be expected to purchase or provide, health or any other kind of insurance for their employees. Instead, employees should be paid fairly and then they should make those decisions however they choose to. If they want to form health-care coops or even employee-union insurance companies that is just fine. But the employers should be out of this aspect of their employees' lives.

I agree. The Canadian and European model is much better. Your health insurance coverage should not be dependent on your current state of employment. People still get sick in between jobs.

 

Duck.

[Stosh]

I've written this before and I will write it again: employers should not purchase or provide, nor should they be expected to purchase or provide, health or any other kind of insurance for their employees. Instead, employees should be paid fairly and then they should make those decisions however they choose to. If they want to form health-care coops or even employee-union insurance companies that is just fine. But the employers should be out of this aspect of their employees' lives.

There is a provision called COBRA which allows a former employee the opportunity to purchase the previous company's health benefits. The only difference is that they need to pay both the employee and employer shares of the premium, which is pretty much what one would have to do if the companies didn't subsidize their employee's benefits. Most employees prefer the lower company subsidized premiums. If companies were to go with the no benefit option, then this option would be off the table. Then there's the company option that are self-insured in their medical benefits for employees. Of course this begs the question of: why should a company pay medical expenses out of their own funds for a former employee? Hardly seems fair.

 

The reason they are called benefits is because it is a financial subsidy for their employees. Of course they don't have to offer that, but then they don't have to offer uniforms, expense reimbursements, and fleet cars/mileage for business travel. One can process all that finance through their income tax benefits and the company is out of the picture and doesn't need to be in the business of being tax assistants to their employees.

 

Benefits are employee perks, not employee entitlements. After all no one is forced to sign up for employer's health benefits, and can like the Canadian/European model, purchase on their own. That option has always been there! It's just one that not many people want. Using the Canadian/European model only is in fact forcing most people to settle for something that the vast majority don't want. That doesn't hardly seem fair either.

[packsaddle]

I've written this before and I will write it again: employers should not purchase or provide, nor should they be expected to purchase or provide, health or any other kind of insurance for their employees. Instead, employees should be paid fairly and then they should make those decisions however they choose to. If they want to form health-care coops or even employee-union insurance companies that is just fine. But the employers should be out of this aspect of their employees' lives.

Unless the business IS an insurance company, businesses should not provide insurance or pay premiums for employees. If businesses want to hire the best employees, they should instead divert those funds to wages and salaries, leaving health care up to the individuals who make their own decisions. This would take a huge bureaucratic and administrative burden off of business and give individual responsibility back to the individuals.

 

However, if the business requires employees to travel in order to do business, then those costs are legitimate costs of doing business and should be reimbursed. But the employee should be reimbursed for actual expenses, and not expect some perquisite such as being able to use the 'company car' for all manner of activity, including personal business. But I see nothing wrong with being reimbursed for travel expenses as long as it is a legitimate business activity.

[scoutingagain]

Agree 100% with Pack. Business should have no more input on an employee's health insurance than they do their car insurance. Period. My employer is currently going through the spectacle of requireing employees to sign a waiver to medical privacy laws and requiring employees to submit blood analysis results for the employee and all others in a family covered by a group health plan to a 3rd party to review as part of a "wellness" program. This is a natural consequence of employer subsidized health insurance.

[Stosh]

I've written this before and I will write it again: employers should not purchase or provide, nor should they be expected to purchase or provide, health or any other kind of insurance for their employees. Instead, employees should be paid fairly and then they should make those decisions however they choose to. If they want to form health-care coops or even employee-union insurance companies that is just fine. But the employers should be out of this aspect of their employees' lives.

No one is forced to purchase an employer's health insurance benefit. It's an option if they so chose. This has been around since day one. What happens though is people find that non-employer options are more expensive than the benefit offered by the employer. Naturally they all want the cheaper option.

 

To remove employer provided subsidized insurance is something people really don't want and I'm thinking there's going to be an uproar if this happens. Oh, pardon me, this is what is happening with Obama care. But now ones only gets a single "option", take it or leave it.

 

Could employers get out of the insurance business? Sure, in a heartbeat, increase the salaries/wages of the employee the amount they subsidize and it won't cost the businesses anything. Businesses all over the place are doing this right now. But to take that partial payment and match with own funds and then go out and get the one option out there and everyone is happy. However, people are beginning to realize that the premiums have been skyrocketing. Sure, with a single payer program, existing conditions don't come into play, but the government needs to recoup those extra costs that insurance companies are avoiding and of course the premiums go up.

 

So, John goes out gets an interview for a job with no health benefits and an interview for a job that pays less with health benefits. Hmmmm. If all things are equal, how much of a pay difference would it take to offset the extra cost of public health care? and what about if the cost was the same? Government health care vs. private health care?

 

Lots of things to consider most of which probably don't bode well for the Obama plan.

[Fehler]

Lets start by removing the tax advantage to employers for providing medical insurance in the first place. If the medical insurance isn't comprehensive, then there shouldn't be a tax advantage in providing it.

[Kahuna]

That's why the employer provided health benefits started in the first place. In the post WWII era, companies were competing for workers and, since employee health benefits were tax deductible, it saved them money over increased salaries. Of course, it reached the point that it became standard and expected. Take away the deduction, you take away the benefits overnight, except where unions are involved.

[Hal_Crawford]

In the year since the original post, gay marriage has passed by referendum in Maryland, Maine and Washington State. Never say never.

[fred johnson]

Yes. Government marriage has changed. Churches made the mistake of getting stuck in advocating their beliefs thru a legal system. That's the same thing we ridicule many islamic countries for doing. That's the churches big mistake. But, it still doesn't make it right and that's what I teach my kids.

 

One of the big theological tenets of the Catholic church that I do believe fully is the principle of Free Will. Not every choice is easy. Not every choice is conscious. We as people are driven by obsessions and compulsions. But that's the human condition and we each have our battles to fight.

 

It's as simple as I have many friends of alternative life styles. I refuse to believe that they are the product of some generic defect that caused their orientation any more than generics caused people to be attracted to thin / fat bodies, small / large breasts, tan / pale skin, small feet, long necks, pierced lips or hairy arm pits.

[acco40]

Fred - as an administrator I almost went in and edited your post for clarity. Please tell me, you used "generic" many times in your post. Was that your intention or were you really implying "genetic?"

 

 

 

For this particular protestant and engineer - I struggle with the concepts of man having free will in concert with the concept of an all knowing God.