Obamacare is a transfer program; it's all about forcing some groups to subsidize others. The manner in which it does so is haphazard and creates perverse incentives. Men and post-menopausal woman subsidize birth control for childbearing-age women. The young subsidize care for the elderly. People that do the responsible thing and pay for insurance while they are well subsidize those who wait until they are sick to take out insurance. The unemployed and self-employed subsidize tax deductions that corporate employers and employees receive on their premiums. Everyone else subsidizes the people who get government money to offset their premiums. And we all subsidize the absolutely massive buresucracy that administers the whole thing.

One poll found that 62 percent of Millennials believe religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception or birth control at no cost.

What an unflattering thing to say! That quote makes it sound like Millennials want somebody to give them free stuff.

The first impediment to a true market in health insurance is the link between employment and insurance ... Delinking the two would be as simple as a few changes to the tax code. But ObamaCare does not address this issue.

Or, better yet, why not allow people to deduct the cost of private health plans from their income? Wouldn't that put private health plans and company health plans on a more equal footing?

Or, more broadly, wouldn't real health care reform (or maybe more properly, health insurance reform) involve identifying things that drive up insurance costs for no reason and making plans to stop doing those things?

Amazing how many have drank the Kool-Aid.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/12/98622-dont-try-sell-family-obamacare-thanksgiving-wont-react-like/

How about employers just pay people a livable wage, and they can pay for health insurance themselves? Oh, wait, that would be too easy...

Forcing religious business owners to choose such plans clearly violates their religious liberty.

No, no, no, a thousand times no.

Employer contributions to heath care is not a mother fucking gift. It is SALARY it is income PAID to an employee for the work they provide to the company.

If you think it is a reasonable argument to allow employers to not offer BC in heath care plans based on religious exemption, why cant they argue that none of the money they pay you can be spent on BC?

Why couldnt a Jehovas Witness claim his company will not cover blood transfusions and organ transplants?

julep it is not salary, if it was:
1 you would be taxed on it.
2. they would have the free choice to change it as they can with any actual salary.
Sorry you have to take a 5% pay cut, doesn't violate any laws. You have the choice take the cut or find a new job.
3. This is the deal the employee agreed to when they were hired.

Why couldnt a Jehovas Witness claim his company will not cover blood transfusions and organ transplants?

I'm pretty sure that a Jehovah's Witness could, in fact, claim that if he/she could find an insurer willing to go along with it. However, that person would have a harder time finding high-quality employees, who will tend to gravitate toward companies offering more options. Same with employers who don't cover birth control. Or those not offering health insurance at all (though the logistics of that have changed under the ACA). There's a reason it's referred to as a benefit, rather than as salary. Most employers choose not to cover high-tech infertility treatment -- do you also consider this to be equivalent to ordering employees not to spend their salary on said treatment? Saying you will not contribute your pretax dollars to offer a plan covering X medical procedure/option is not the same thing as forbidding someone to obtain it at all.

"If you think it is a reasonable argument to allow employers to not offer BC in heath care plans based on religious exemption, why cant they argue that none of the money they pay you can be spent on BC?"

Your point is taken; nonetheless, there is a general libertarian principle here. What business is it of the government to decide what kind of insurance an employer has to offer?

julep it is not salary, if it was:
1 you would be taxed on it.

According to provisions in the ACA you are now taxed on it.

Also it is salary, companies started offering it during WW2 to get around wage caps enforced by war rationing

@lujlp I disagree, but it still fails at the idea, companies legally have input on what salary they give.

The real thing with this is no company should be forced to do this, so there shouldn't be a religious exception, the exception should apply to everyone.

If you are arguing no company should be forced to offer insurance at all I agree.

If you are arguing no company should be forced to provide a heath plan that covers BC I disagree. How an employee chooses to spend their money is none of the company's business.

But it isn't their money if the company is buying it.
How an employer chooses to spend their money is their own business. It is not the employees until after they received it.

But it isn't their money if the company is buying it.

Why not? If I sign a work contract for salary and perks and one of the perks is the company agrees to pay a portion of the cost of the heath care package of my choice why does someone higher up in the company then get to say, 'Oh by the way my religion frowns on this kind of medicine, therefore I'm not going to let the compnay pay for it.'?

Healthcare payments are not gifts, they are part of the payment a company trades for labor.

If a company can argue religious exemption why cant they argue none of the money they pay you can be spent on that which they do not like?

Because it NEVER was "the health insurance of your choice" it was always one of the ones the company bargained for. No one ever had he choice of all possible plans just the ones the company chose to purse. They pursue them for their own reasons.
I don't see how someone can have the conflicting thing that they shouldn't be forced to offer any, but should be forced to have a specific subset of plans offered.

the big fallacy here is equating all types of birth control with a medical cost. Whether or not you believe it is necessary, Viagra is suppposed to correct a improperly functioning reproductive organ. On the other hand, birth control, particularly those of the prescriptive type, is actually an intervention to prevent the proper functioning of a a reproductive organ. How is preventing a reproductive organ from functioning in the way it should a coverable medical cost? it is like paying insurance premiums to cover oil changes on your car. BTW, I don't have any opposition to any form of contraceptive, just don't think society should subsidize everybody's cost

Because it NEVER was "the health insurance of your choice" it was always one of the ones the company bargained for.

Now that is a good argument. And the only counter I have to it is the government is not requiring companies to provide BC, the government is requiring insurance plans to offer BC.

And as you just pointed out its not about insurance plans of choice, but those companies negotiate for. And if all of the negotiated plans are required by law to have BC how can the company claim a religious objection?

How is preventing a reproductive organ from functioning in the way it should a coverable medical cost?

Good question. Tell me, how is using antibiotics or pain killers and preventing you immune system or nervous system from functioning the way it should a coverable medical cost?

"government is not requiring companies to provide BC, the government is requiring insurance plans to offer BC.

Nope the exact opposite is true. insurance companies still have plans that don't cover BC, because other groups (Churches, religious non-profits) and individuals have them.
They are trying to require companies to only buy ones which offer BC.

" And if all of the negotiated plans are required by law to have BC"

They aren't!
Individuals and other groups can and do have plans without bc. Smaller companies I believe also don't. The plans exist. Insurance companies will sell them. Gov't will punish companies if they use them.

They aren't!
Individuals and other groups can and do have plans without bc. Smaller companies I believe also don't. The plans exist. Insurance companies will sell them. Gov't will punish companies if they use them.

Arent those plans getting cancelled as "substandard" under the ACA

"Arent those plans getting cancelled as "substandard" under the ACA"

Nope, it was already ruled they can't be for non-profit, religious groups, and individuals, the question is now if for profit religious businesses can.

"the big fallacy here is equating all types of birth control with a medical cost. "

Well, actually, that's a good question... if insurance is mandated to cover all forms of BC, why doesn't it pay for condoms?

"How about employers just pay people a livable wage, and they can pay for health insurance themselves? Oh, wait, that would be too easy..."

That's completely backwards. It is not the job of any employer to pay someone a "living wage". It is the job of the worker to earn it.

I am surprised I have to explain these things.