Could The Blunt Amendment Allow Employers To Block HIV Screening?

[xchrom]

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/could-blunt-amendment-allow-employers-block-hiv-screening-yes

The Weekly Standard's John McCormack insists that my piece a few days ago on Sen. Roy Blunt's (R-Mo.) amendment, which would expand "conscience" exemptions in the Affordable Care Act, is inaccurate. He maintains that it would not allow health care providers or employers to deny certain services or treatments:

'Can Democrats cite real examples of Christian businessmen denying AIDS treatment or screenings prior to Obamacare's passage? No, they can't. Because that never happened. (Though you can find countless examples of Christians setting up ministries specifically devoted to providing care to AIDS patients.) Furthermore, the conscience bill would not let employers decide by themselves to ban coverage of specific services. If an employer wanted to target AIDS victims who work for him, he would have to find an insurance company that specifically denied treatment for AIDS. Does such an insurance company exist in the United States of America?'

McCormack writes that "the conscience bill would not let employers decide by themselves to ban coverage of specific services." Except, that's exactly what the bill says it would do. It states that "a health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide [Essential Health Benefits or Preventive Services]" if it fails to cover the service or benefit because "providing coverage...of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan." Moreover, employers frequently set up their own insurance plans and then pay insurance companies to administer them—more than half of workers were covered by such plans, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. So employers wouldn't have to find an insurance company that denied treatment for services or benefits mandated under the Affordable Care Act. They could design their own.

[HockeyMom]

1. There is another flaw in their "logic"

An employer can refuse to cover what he is morally opposed to? Well, what about federal, state, and local public employees? Think about that small business employer. Clearly, he has to pay taxes. If these public employees are covered by government health plans, whether they themselves pay premiums or not, their government employer pays the rest. Where do goverment employers get the money from to pay for the preimums? TAXES from the citizens of that state, city, etc. That small business employer is STILL paying for morally objectionable coverage for all the public employees. Same for ANY CITIZEN paying taxes who might find thi s objectionable. How many tax paying citizens have moral objections to war? Can they opt out too? How is it any different. A part of my premiums for health insurance was paid by the public school district I worked for. It covered contraceptives with a co-pay. Taxpayers paid it through the portion of school property taxes --- IN FORIDA. Hello, Senator Rubio???? Oh, a STATE can opt out? The state is of one religion? That is almost like Mr. Target and Mr. Walmart being "persons".

Bishop Dolan of NYC. Yep, same is true there too, and HAS BEEN for a long time. Any Catholic living in NYC is already pay for other people's BC (public employees). Where is your OUTRAGE on that, Bishop? Not a peep for years.

The bottom line is that if you are morally opposed to BC, or Blood Transfusions, or ALL Medical Care, don't YOU YOURSELF use them.