Eschewmenical Blog Room

12:28 AM

@StackExchange I'm really baffled by some of the comments from the blog today. Would you really support an employer who forbids a floor worker or secretary to use a legal drug that can reduce the nausea and vomiting that are side effects of some chemotherapy drugs? Just because it is derived from the cannabis plant?

What else would you ban? Medical opiates such as morphine and codeine?

And as far as I can tell, this is not even for religious reasons, but... why, exactly?

Stack Exchange

1:14 AM

Comments for Eschewmenical - The Christianity S…: Comment on An evangelical view of contraception by Michael Hollinger

posted on March 20, 2012 by Michael Hollinger

@BruceAlderman Thomas Jefferson said the most onerous injustice was to force a man to pay for that which he finds contemptable. All I'm saying is that no one should be compelled to purchase for another that which they find reprehensible. As Jon Ericson is pointing out, there is a difference between restricting one's access and compelling another to pay for it. I hate abortion - that doesn't …

Comments for Eschewmenical - The Christianity S…: Comment on An evangelical view of contraception by Michael Hollinger

posted on March 20, 2012 by Michael Hollinger

@Trig Ok, should a vegan restaurant be forced to serve meat?

Stack Exchange

3:47 AM

Comments for Eschewmenical - The Christianity S…: Comment on An evangelical view of contraception by Bruce Alderman

posted on March 20, 2012 by Bruce Alderman

But it's not the employer's money. An employer-based health insurance package is legally considered to be part of the employee's compensation. That's why the employer can take a tax deduction on the full amount they've paid toward health insurance. Again I ask, how far would you take it? Which of the following are OK with you? "It's nice that your medication helps keep your bipolar disorde…

Comments for Eschewmenical - The Christianity S…: Comment on An evangelical view of contraception by Bruce Alderman

posted on March 20, 2012 by Bruce Alderman

Or is the analogy: Should a vegan restaurant be allowed to fire an employee who eats meat?

Bruce Alderman

3:40 PM

@StackExchange I've been looking for that Jefferson quote to try to find the context, and I'm coming up with nothing. The closest I could find was a quote from science fiction writer Robert Heinlein, who said, "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." Is that what you're referring to?

Peter Turner

4:08 PM

didn't see it here, but this is a good book

Bruce Alderman

4:48 PM

@PeterTurner Thanks for that link! That's a great resource.

Jon Ericson

5:00 PM

@StackExchange To be completely honest, yes: a vegan restaurant should be allowed to fire an employee who eats meat. And yes, if they can find an insurance company that will write the policy, they should be allowed to not pay for medical treatments that they do not approve of.

@Bruce: I don't know if the rules that we have in this country that govern employer-employee relationships are just, Biblical, or Christian, but in this case at least, they are fair and reasonable.

The law should not mandate who an employer can hire or fire. It is because of our country's injustice of the past that laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were enacted. As a country, we can't be trusted to not discriminate, so we have put in place rules to restrain employers.

Bruce Alderman

@JonEricson I don't understand this statement. What does "fair and reasonable" mean when laws support the rich and powerful over and against the poor and needy?

@JonEricson And how far does "not approve" go? I've asked this question several times, and no one seems to want to answer. Does this mean religious objections, personal moral objections, personal preference?

Why should an employer be the only one to have input on an insurance policy that covers everyone in the company?

You say it's reasonable, but I don't hear any reasoning behind it.

Jon Ericson

@BruceAlderman I'm afraid we look at the world with radically different lenses. I disagree that the laws "support the rich and powerful over and against the poor and needy".

@BruceAlderman This is a red herring. When I chose where to work, one of my criteria was whether the benefits (include health insurance) met my needs. I literally had two identical salary offers, but completely different benefit packages. I had agency about which offer to accept and so I was able to pick from two sets of benefits.

Bruce Alderman

5:17 PM

@JonEricson If you're looking at EEOC, sure. But in general, if employers have the freedom to hire and fire at will (which they do in most of the U.S.) then the existing laws favor employer rights over employee rights.

Jon Ericson

I have friends who left their jobs in order to get better benefits. We aren't slaves to our jobs.

Bruce Alderman

@JonEricson Yes, I had to leave my last job to get better benefits. But I wouldn't have chosen to leave if I hadn't needed better insurance.

Jon Ericson

Not to mention that the employment situation in First World countries is totally different than for Third World countries.

@BruceAlderman Ah. That certainly is a frustration.

Bruce Alderman

@JonEricson And not everybody has the skills to just find a new job whenever they want.

Jon Ericson

One of my friends pointed out that it was cheaper to self-insure than to accept any of his company's health options. It was just a terribly negotiated contract.

@BruceAlderman That's true.

Often, the sorts of low-end jobs that sort of entrap people like that are also unionized. That's a good thing. (And I disapprove of many individual unions.)

Bruce Alderman

5:24 PM

@JonEricson That may be true for some people. I was laid off from the job before last, and my wife had a chronic illness, so no insurance was willing to cover us.

Jon Ericson

@BruceAlderman Ugh. That's truly unreasonable.

But I should note, that this is orthogonal to the question at hand. (At least as I understand it...)

Bruce Alderman

@JonEricson I see it as part of the same issue. Employer-based health insurance puts too much control in the hands of employers and insurance companies. The whole system needs to be dismantled.

The trick is to come up with a better system to replace it.

wax eagle

@BruceAlderman yes, and I don't think we've seen one. (BTW tangential to this, but related, NPR is doing a series this week on health care)

Bruce Alderman

@waxeagle Cool, I'll try to catch that.

wax eagle

@BruceAlderman its on ATC I think

Jon Ericson

5:30 PM

@BruceAlderman I guess that's why I'm confused about the tinkering about the edges. If starting over is the solution, why are we spending any time at all going after minority religious employers who refuse to provide relatively cheap and available treatments because of deeply held convictions?

Bruce Alderman

@JonEricson I don't think anyone is going after religious employers. I think the decision to enforce including contraceptives in health care plans was made without considering all the repercussions.

The White House issued a compromise that exempted employers from paying for contraceptives to be added to the plan.

Jon Ericson

@BruceAlderman That seems.... unlikely. I can't think of any other reason an employer would refuse to provide contraceptives. It's in their best interest afterall.

@BruceAlderman Right. After the one group that was effected by the enforcement raising a big stink.

Bruce Alderman

@JonEricson Yes, like I said, they didn't think through everything before issuing the directive. But they've shown a willingness to work with those affected.

@JonEricson Some insurance plans don't cover any medications. Some cover only preventive medicines like vaccines; others cover only what is mandated by the government.

Jon Ericson

@BruceAlderman I find this justification unsatisfying. Perhaps that's because I'm in the middle of Eric Metaxas' Bonhoeffer book, which included the famous Martin Niemöller quote.

@BruceAlderman That's a good point. I've only heard of contraceptives being mandated. What other drugs are included in the mandate?

Bruce Alderman

5:48 PM

@JonEricson I think this directive only covered contraceptives. But many state governments have minimum coverage standards, and I think the health care reform act of 2010 establishes a basic set of standards at the federal level.

Stack Exchange

6:30 PM

Comments for Eschewmenical - The Christianity S…: Comment on An evangelical view of contraception by Timothy (TRiG)

posted on March 20, 2012 by Timothy (TRiG)

it’s not the employer’s money The main point, thanks. TRiG.

TRiG

Is it not simply the case that the US healthcare system is completely broken? I've heard of people actually avoiding early screening, which could catch illnesses when they're still treatable, because that would make the illness a "pre-existing condition".

2

This delay makes the final treatment (a) more expensive, and (b) less effective.

Add to this the fact that right-wingers are, as ever, eager to muddy the waters by telling outright lies (cough death panels), and you simply have a complete mess.

wax eagle

@TRiG yes, but lets not pretend that there aren't lies on both sides. Its politics.

and while its incredibly broken, its also a 1/8th of our economy which means that its something that has to be dealt with carefully

Jon Ericson

6:50 PM

Apropos of ... something, at least we didn't dive into this mess.

And also in US Supreme Court news, I have a personal interest in this rejected appeal.

Stack Exchange

Comments for Eschewmenical - The Christianity S…: Comment on An evangelical view of contraception by Timothy (TRiG)

posted on March 20, 2012 by Timothy (TRiG)

Michael, that's still not a fully apt analogy. Employment is not the same as service. There are laws around service discrimination, but they're not really the same as laws around employment discrimination, because they're different fields. Should a vegan restaurant be allowed to fire an employee who eats meat? Now that's a more interesting one. Bear in mind that the vegan restaurant may mer…

Bruce Alderman

7:55 PM

@JonEricson I'm a little unclear about this ruling. The article seems to indicate the school is merely denying state funding to the fraternity and sorority, but the attorney is quoted as saying, "it did tell Christian groups that they must allow themselves to be led by atheists."

Bruce Alderman

8:06 PM

OK, it looks like it's about official recognition and funding. And apparently other Christian groups on the same campus do receive school funding.

Transcript for

Eschewmenical Blog Room