My initial reaction to the Hobby Lobby decision has been pretty ugly. I'm already pretty touchy about reproductive issues and women's health, so I'm on edge to begin with, but then the courts decide that some dude who owns a company gets to impart his opinions on someone else's medical care?
Oh hell naw!
That is between me and my doctor. You and whatever deity you align with are not medical practitioners, and even if you were, you're not the ones in charge of my care. That is literally private information, which means it falls under none of your business. Did my doctor prescribe me this treatment? Then they must have determined that it was within the best course of care for me and my body. None of that needs to be okay-ed by Mr. CEO.
We all know medicine is basically run by insurance companies nowadays, which primarily is made purchasable through our employers. FYI, that means we the employee are still paying for it.
It's required by law that an employer make insurance provisions for their employees in the United States, and with this new, poorly named Affordable Care Act, that means preventative care is part of the deal. In theory, there are supposed to be options outside of your employer, however many states have opted out of these programs, employees don't qualify, or there simply aren't the resources for that option. So, while on paper this could be a non-issue, in all functional reality, many of these employees will have to accept their employer's insurance plan. In short, Mr. CEO gets to call the shots with your medical care.
For argument's sake, one might say, "Well switch employers," to which I'd respond with, "Are you fucking kidding me?" In this particular case, Hobby Lobby hires entry level workers, which as many of us know, is a bloated market when it comes to employee/employment opportunity ratio, so right off the bat I can guarantee it would be a bitch to find new work. On top of which, with this new precedent in which corporations can limit your medical coverage, who's to say that your next boss doesn't call shots on their plans too? Should you just keep jumping ship?
What happens now when, say, a Mormon business owner decides he wants to only provide coverage for non-addictive medications because habit forming substances are against his religion? That might not seem like a big deal, until you realize the almost endless list of medications that fall under that criteria. Jehovah's Witnesses oppose blood transfusion, so I guess people working under them won't have surgeries covered now. Muslims religiously cover their bodies, so if one of their employees needs treatment for sun blisters or sunburn, that's the result of a lifestyle choice and shouldn't be covered by their medical plan. Catholic employers not only oppose contraceptives, but also DNR, so good luck with those end of life choices. Hindus don't eat meat, and therefore need not have care for food-borne parasites, and neither should their employees, right?
Okay that last one was a stretch, but you get where I'm going with this. This is a precarious time right now, with a lot of decisions being made that are going to end up boxing people into ugly situations.
I'd also like to share this article directly from WhiteHouse.gov, referencing religious organizations and how coverage should be handled in their cases, as opposed to a private company. As in, not a religious corporation, like, you know, a craft store. BTW, Hobby Lobby, if you want these special exemptions, maybe you should become Crafts for Christians, except then you can't be for profit. Darn those pesky labor laws!
"After a number of objections related to religious concerns, in February 2012, President Obama announced a final policy to exempt churches and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections and instead, requiring employers’ insurance companies to offer contraception coverage to women directly and free of charge.
Today, President Obama will announce that his Administration will implement a policy that accommodates religious liberty while protecting the health of women. Today, nearly 99 percent of all women have used contraception at some point in their lives, but more than half of all women between the ages of 18-34 struggle to afford it.
Under the new policy to be announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works. The policy also ensures that if a woman works for a religious employer with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide, pay for or refer for contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge.
The new policy ensures women can get contraception without paying a co-pay and fully accommodates important concerns raised by religious groups by ensuring that objecting non-profit religious employers will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer women to organizations that provide contraception. Background on this policy is included below:
• Under Section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act, the Administration adopted new guidelines that will require most private health plans to cover preventive services for women without charging a co-pay starting on August 1, 2012. These preventive services include well women visits, domestic violence screening, and contraception, and all were recommended to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the independent Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science.
• Today, the Obama Administration will publish final rules in the Federal Register that:
o Exempts churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections.
o Establishes a one-year transition period for religious organizations while this policy is being implemented.
• The President will also announce that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted non-profit religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy:
o Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.
o Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.
o Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.
o Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.
o The new policy does not affect existing state requirements concerning contraception coverage.
Covering contraception is cost neutral since it saves money by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. For example, there was no increase in premiums when contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System and required of non-religious employers in Hawaii. One study found that covering contraception saved employees $97 per year, per employee. "
I am so with you! I love some of the examples of stuff that could be not covered on religious grounds. Makes one think.
ReplyDelete