Should employers be allowed to opt out of offering treatments they object to?

There is a challenge in the courts right now from several companies that want protection from a part of the ACA that requires employers to cover the morning after pill. I could go into the ignorance behind this complaint ( ie: that the pill induces an abortion - it does not) but the real question is whether we should allow exemptions at all. What if a company were owned by the Jahova’s Witnesses. Should they be allowed to deny coverage for blood transfusions to their employees?
Just one more reason why we need universal coverage. Its just another example of insanity in the existing system. You may have serious gaps in your coverage depending on who you work for and you may not even know it.

I lean heavily toward allowing no exemptions, lest the ACA become as riddled with loopholes as is the IRS.

What if a company were owned by the Jahova’s Witnesses. Should they be allowed to deny coverage for blood transfusions to their employees?
My answer to that would be "NO!" What one practices in terms of their religion is their own business so long as it effects nobody else. When somebody's religion expresses itself in a manner which effects my life, health and safety, that's crossing a line that these people have no business crossing.
There is a challenge in the courts right now from several companies that want protection from a part of the ACA that requires employers to cover the morning after pill. I could go into the ignorance behind this complaint ( ie: that the pill induces an abortion - it does not) but the real question is whether we should allow exemptions at all. What if a company were owned by the Jahova's Witnesses. Should they be allowed to deny coverage for blood transfusions to their employees? Just one more reason why we need universal coverage. Its just another example of insanity in the existing system. You may have serious gaps in your coverage depending on who you work for and you may not even know it.
Hear, hear! MacGyver! Exemptions have no place in any medical system for any reason. Lois

Just to play devils advocate… Does this mean Chik Fil A shouldn’t be allowed to be closed on Sunday? The bottomline with the case described is, should a business with a religious owner be able to impose his beliefs on his employees? Being closed on Sunday is straight from the CFA owners religious beliefs. Should that be illegal?

Just to play devils advocate... Does this mean Chik Fil A shouldn't be allowed to be closed on Sunday? The bottomline with the case described is, should a business with a religious owner be able to impose his beliefs on his employees? Being closed on Sunday is straight from the CFA owners religious beliefs. Should that be illegal?
No. That's a different law and a different category altogether. One is a business decision. A business owner can either conduct business or close it for his own reasons within the business law of the state or municipality. The other comes under employee benefits law and is in place for the protection of the employee. Lois
Does this mean Chik Fil A shouldn’t be allowed to be closed on Sunday?
Restaurant operating hours don't effect medical treatment issues or options. If they don't want to do business on Sundays...or odd numbered Ramadans for that matter....that's their concern. So long as they don't cross that line which nobody has any business crossing, it's their call.
There is a challenge in the courts right now from several companies that want protection from a part of the ACA that requires employers to cover the morning after pill. I could go into the ignorance behind this complaint ( ie: that the pill induces an abortion - it does not) but the real question is whether we should allow exemptions at all. What if a company were owned by the Jahova's Witnesses. Should they be allowed to deny coverage for blood transfusions to their employees? Just one more reason why we need universal coverage. Its just another example of insanity in the existing system. You may have serious gaps in your coverage depending on who you work for and you may not even know it.
If an employer is a pacifist, does that mean that they are allowed an exemption from the part of their taxes that would pay for the military? Of course, health insurance isn't taxes. Not quite yet. But making it mandatory is pretty close. Employers should have no say in how their employees make personal health decisions. But, making them pay for health care costs anyway does make it seem like they are being made responsible for their employees' health decisions, and hence with responsibility may come a say. But . . . this apparent responsibility is an illusion, similar to the concept of pacifists not paying taxes to the military. The services are there for the protection and the betterment of society, whether or not someone agrees or disagrees with the practice.

I like everyone’s responses.
An underlying dynamic here is the concept of Labor in The United States of America.
If someone is an Employee then they have been conditioned by so many different forces
to understand that their job, their livelihood, is a privilege.
That they are there in their job, but for the sake of their employer.
This lawsuit is just one more example of business owning Congress and therefore having complete control over Labor.
The idea that an employee is just goddamned lucky enough to have a job in the first place is one of the eroding, and endemic features of this nation.
It doesn’t have to be that way. And it shouldn’t be that way. If it wasn’t that way, then we wouldn’t have this lawsuit and many, many others like it.
The title to this thread may as well be: “Should employers be legally allowed to whip their employees with a switch for tardiness?”

The title to this thread may as well be: “Should employers be legally allowed to whip their employees with a switch for tardiness?"
No, but corporations have found a way around increased expenses due to Obamacare and to circumnavigate unions. it's called going " protean". This method would cut expenses i.e. medical care, by cutting employees, Leave a token force and outsource the rest of the work. THe supposed magic number of 49 employees could Knock them out of the program. this is already being done BTW in the restaurant business. Employees have been given notice that their hours are being cut to less that 30 and many are being laid off. Hence poor service due to fewer cooks and servers. Those still employed are working fewer hours with a reduced staff and still will not qualify for any benefits. This is legal slavery at it's worst. Those still employed have no other option but to augment their wages with another job or apply for a public assistance program creating a cycle of poverty that will spiral the already shrinking middle class even further into poverty as the corporations grow fatter. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/small-business-obamacare_n_2581653.html Cap't Jack
Does this mean Chik Fil A shouldn’t be allowed to be closed on Sunday?
Restaurant operating hours don't effect medical treatment issues or options. If they don't want to do business on Sundays...or odd numbered Ramadans for that matter....that's their concern. So long as they don't cross that line which nobody has any business crossing, it's their call.
Sure they do. If an employee loses roughly 4 days a month of pay that's money that can't go towards doctors visits, medicine, etc. It's not as direct as not covering certain medical procedures, but it can have an effect.

I’m assuming that our middle class is largely composed of persons who would be classified as employees rather than employers. But with that assumption, is it just a coincidence that our middle class (which is in severe decline http://www.infowars.com/84-statistics-that-prove-the-decline-of-the-middle-class-is-real-and-that-it-is-getting-worse/ ) was so much better off when there existed a countervailing Communistic world power?

I don’t think employers should be allowed to opt out. One’s medical treatment is between them and their doctor, not them, their doctor, and their employer. Unless the employer is in the medical field, that employer doesn’t know squat about medicine, esp not their employee’s medical condition or health.

Yes, that would be a disaster. One more thing to consider when applying for a job. What if the employer doesn’t like drinking, and won’t let you use your earned money to buy the occasional beer? Or if he believes everyone should ride around in a horse and buggy, or you shouldn’t have stairs in your house? What if they didn’t like your church, or that you have allergies. This is all so absurd!

I think they should be able to opt out of some things. Alternative treatments that don’t have any scientific evidence, for one.

I think they should be able to opt out of some things. Alternative treatments that don't have any scientific evidence, for one.
Even then, I think people should have freedom of choice. A holistic dr who uses both is better than one who is completely alternative, in part because a holistic dr uses both scientifically proven methods and methods still needing tests to prove their efficacy and usefulness. However, if s/he used both at the same time, it would be difficult to prove the alternative was effective. For example: My older son is studying to be a massage therapist and according to him massage is an effective treatment for premie babies. I did some research and it's not so much the massage, but rather the human touch, which humans thrive on and even need, because we are born social animals. That in conjunction with scientifically proven treatments could be a boost for babies born premature. It won't trigger lung development or alike, but it does give that social aspect that humans need from birth. In sports injuries, massage allegedly stimulates blood flow to the injured area, thereby assisting in helping it heal and currently used for some people, with certain injuries, in conjunction with physical and rehabilitation/occupational therapy, as well as any medications the doctor Rx. In his chosen field of study, massage therapy isn't the only treatment patients are given, but it is combined with other treatments. Before any massage is given, he inquires about the person's medical history and any meds they maybe on. If there is a potential for a clot, then massage therapy isn't an option, from what I understood. Certain or recent neck injuries could also exclude them from massage therapy too. I was skeptical at first, concerning his chosen field, but then I did some research, beyond the information the school gave out to students and their parents. Of course, when he started at age 20 (now 24) my hands were a bit tied to stop him, if I didn't agree, but instead of arguing with him, I did research on massage therapy, even on massage therapy v a spa massage, which apparently are two different categories of massage. My point is, some [alternative] treatments are therapeutic and in conjunction with proven methods, could lead to new viable treatments. I don't think we should exclude all things that are considered "alternative". Even allegedly proven physical and rehabilitation therapies aren't necessarily good and medical professionals have been known to change their minds about certain OT and PT methods. Apparently, massage therapy is becoming a more acceptable course in conjunction with PT and OT and not just something for spas (which is a different kind of massage with a different course of study). Spa doesn't have much by way of study of muscles and bones. Therapeutic massage studies muscles and bones. Whatever the case, my son does give good massages, providing temporary relief, at least with muscles full of stress. I still have some skepticism, but I'm still researching it too. However, the field he is going into is not the end all and be all treatment for sports injury or any other injury patients or even for premature babies. There's more to their treatment than that, but it seems to be receiving attention and is becoming part of the Tx within some patients OT and/or PT.
Mriana-In sports injuries, massage allegedly stimulates blood flow to the injured area, thereby assisting in helping it heal and currently used for some people, with certain injuries, in conjunction with physical and rehabilitation/occupational therapy, as well as any medications the doctor Rx.
Mriana, I'm sorry you have to put allegedly in your sentence. I know the heavy shadow that lurks over this forum regarding anything that doesn't come in a test tube and cost 12 years of college. I'm glad for your son. I hope it turns out to be a lucrative career. I have gone to a massage therapist in the past for an achy back. At the very least it felt good. It was worth the money. I had a rebuttal on this forum once regarding someone's objection to massage therapy efficacy. It goes something like this: When you stub your toe or bang your elbow, what's the first thing you do? You massage it, and say ooouuch! I'll be gosh darned if that massage reaction doesn't almost come instinctively or automatically. So something is going on there. And yes, I also agree that all forms of health care should be included-except perhaps elective procedures. Such as breast augmentation or nose jobs.
Mriana-In sports injuries, massage allegedly stimulates blood flow to the injured area, thereby assisting in helping it heal and currently used for some people, with certain injuries, in conjunction with physical and rehabilitation/occupational therapy, as well as any medications the doctor Rx.
Mriana, I'm sorry you have to put allegedly in your sentence. I know the heavy shadow that lurks over this forum regarding anything that doesn't come in a test tube and cost 12 years of college. I'm glad for your son. I hope it turns out to be a lucrative career. I have gone to a massage therapist in the past for an achy back. At the very least it felt good. It was worth the money. I had a rebuttal on this forum once regarding someone's objection to massage therapy efficacy. It goes something like this: When you stub your toe or bang your elbow, what's the first thing you do? You massage it, and say ooouuch! I'll be gosh darned if that massage reaction doesn't almost come instinctively or automatically. So something is going on there. And yes, I also agree that all forms of health care should be included-except perhaps elective procedures. Such as breast augmentation or nose jobs.
Yes, I'm sorry I have to use the word "allegedly" too, but I agree with you completely, including on elective procedures being exempt. Those should not be covered by insurance, IMO, except maybe in the case of a woman who has had breast cancer and had to have one or both breast removed. Even then I question it, due to prosthetics. My mother had breast cancer in one breast and they removed it over 10 years ago. She went around for weeks saying she felt like an alien, until I hooked up with the Women's Center who gave her a prosthetic. That, in itself, helped her some psychologically. It is part of the reason why I question whether or not some elective procedures should be covered or not. When is it an elective and when is it a useful surgery? Are prosthetics better than rebuilding the breast(s) after breast cancer or not, with or without psychological counseling for the patient? So far my mother has done well, psychologically, with just a prosthetic, so maybe my question is null and void. I also hope it is lucrative for my son too. He still has clinic hours to do and is getting very discouraged, in part due to finances. He got student loans to pay for it and has found he's over his head now.
I'm assuming that our middle class is largely composed of persons who would be classified as employees rather than employers. But with that assumption, is it just a coincidence that our middle class (which is in severe decline http://www.infowars.com/84-statistics-that-prove-the-decline-of-the-middle-class-is-real-and-that-it-is-getting-worse/ ) was so much better off when there existed a countervailing Communistic world power?
The American middle class became affluent primarily because of the rise of the assembly line. Industrial revolution and stuff.
Mriana-I also hope it is lucrative for my son too. He still has clinic hours to do and is getting very discouraged, in part due to finances. He got student loans to pay for it and has found he's over his head now.
Well a little discouragement never hurt nobody. He's gotta hang tough. Tough times these days. Really. There's lot's of articles out nowadays about the cost of education. How youth have to get in debt for 20-30 years just to get a degree they may never use. That massage therapy sounds like a lock though. Health care and care giving seem to be a steady growth industry. How ironic this conversation is, in this thread. On a few levels. Regular people are getting squeezed.....