Quantcast
U.S. & World

Supreme Court will take up new health law dispute

Comments

Return To Article
  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 7:27 a.m.

    It is fascinating how politically correct bullies who claim to be traumatized by public religious speech (which requires no more emotional effort than mere tolerance of a different opinion) suddenly do not see a problem forcing someone to violate their conscience or pay for things that violate their religion.

    It is fascinating that those who claim to be all about freedom of speech suddenly claim that businesses have NO right to freedom of speech or religion (but unions and associations do)

    It is fascinating how some people claim to be victims when others do not pay for their free stuff and they cannot seem to comprehend they are actually perpetrators for forcing others, against their will, to do things that they can do themselves.

    The HHS mandate is the epitome of politically correct bullying and hypocrisy

  • Northern Logan, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    @counter

    Well said!!

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    The 40 companies not just object to birth control. They object to providing abortificants such as the "morning after" pill, which is contravention to the Hyde amendment. The Hyde amendment prohibits public funding of abortion.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    @CI
    I am not interested in yet another day of debating your victimhood but I will remind you of an old saying, you cannot take the effect and make it the cause.

    I do think it is very appropriate for the supreme court to take up this issue because of the conflicting lower court rulings and the question of constitutionality.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 26, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    Since the law – which simply mandates that insurance, part of all employee’s paid compensation, cover things people want (i.e., no employer is directly purchasing anything) – is a generally applicable law that does not in any way target religious people, all prior precedents (including Employment Division v Smith) suggest Hobby Lobby et al should lose their case in a 9-0 decision.

    That said, given the fact that Scalia likely favors Hobby Lobby’s position for purely political/religious reasons, it will be interesting to watch the contortions & mental gymnastics he will perform to twist the law (including doing a complete 180 on his opinion in the above mentioned case) into the outcome he wants.
    Roberts and Kennedy will likely decide the outcome…

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Nov. 26, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    Counter Intelligence -

    For-profit companies do not have a will, they do not have a religion, and they do not have a conscience. But, you seem so sure of yourself, so I bet you can prove to me where the laws of the United States grant corporations a will, conscience, and religion. Please, show me where those corporate rights exist under statutory or case law. I'll wait.

    I'm sorry but the owners of the companies are not special, they do not have a legally-recognized right to exert their personal morality through their company. It's time for Christian exceptionalism to come to an end in the United States.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 26, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    #1 Morning after pills are not considered or classified by scientists as abortifacients because they prevent ovulation and fertilization.

    #2 There is no evidence to date that Ella or Plan B prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. When taken after ovulation, pregnancy occured at the same rate as women who had not taken the morning after pills.

    #3 The Catholic Health Assoc.: “HHS has now established an accommodation that will allow our ministries to continue offering health-insurance plans for their employees as they have always done,” read the opening statement accompanying the trade group’s “memorandum,” which explains how the final rules would work.
    “We are pleased that our members now have an accommodation that will not require them to contract, provide, pay or refer for contraceptives."

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    another reason to come join the crowd that believes in Liberty. Get the Federal government out of everything from defining marriage to providing health care to the "do-gooders" seeking validation through government action. Liberty is a wonderful feeling when defined by yourself, not a government bureaucrat or an elected leader. How frustrating it must be for those who continue to seek a Utopia through government fiat. Come join the ranks of those who understand liberty and live it without the chains of government decree. How empty it must feel to never be able to move forward in life without a government officer telling you what to do or a handbook of instructions(Printed, of course, by the government).

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    If you use religion to force action upon others, you do not advocate freedom.

    You advocate a theocracy.

    What will happen then, when someone else's religious beliefs, conflict then, with your own?

    We already have examples of this in Human history.

    The Crusades, Jihads, Oaklahoma Bombing, 9/11.

    And the murder of doctors in churches.

    'George Tiller Killed: Abortion Doctor Shot At Church' - Huffington Post - 05/31/09

  • Jim Cobabe Provo, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    How strong a parallel between the horrors of the bombs or the abortions which destroy human life. What difference if death is delivered by high-tech drones or high-tech pills? The devastation is the same. While a few hundred are slaughtered by bombs, or a few thousand die from tropical storms, countless millions of unborn babies are murdered and unceremoniously discarded in dumpsters.

  • LEDSFW Las Vegas, NV
    Nov. 26, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    OBAMACARE Regulations might strip AFLEC of its ability to provide a variety of supplemental coverages. Liberals may regulate them away. But if AFLEC survives, it could continue to provide a variety of individual supplemental insurances including a policy to cover women's reproductive health issues (including child-murder, I mean abortion). If that was provided and allowed in the regulations (not sure AFLEC would want to provide such a policy), then an enterprising company could offer the product to employees/individuals without employer subsidy as part of people's HSA or 125(a) programs or simply as a separate individual coverage available on-line. It would have to exclude pre-existing pregnancies from termination of life coverage of course. The point is, the Supreme Court should find OBAMACARE a 13th Amendment violation. Nevertheless, the private sector could fill the (sad-to-say) need and want without forcing an employer mandate; thus relieving responsible companies like Hobby Lobby to continue to control its OWN business destiny. The patrons of Hobby Lobby who purchase goods and services nor Hobby Lobby's Management's should be held by Marxists as responsible to pay for irresponsible women to terminate an innocent human life against conscience.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 26, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    If you guys want birth control pills, pay for them yourselves! Stop trying to force other people to be responsible for your body and what you choose to put into it or do with it!

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    So, liberals want to force businesses to violate their owners consciences. Let's say the Supremes agree: that Hobby Lobby has to pay to let women murder their children. Then Hobby Lobby will likely drop all health insurance for their employees. What then, liberals? Force Hobby Lobby to offer health insurance if they want to stay in business?

    Why not--I mean, you fascists are all gung ho about forcing Americans to pay the government a yearly tax merely for the privilege of existing. After all, that is what America is all about--if you breathe, you pay Obama his fine or else! George and Tom would be so proud that at last their vision of an America run by a government that demands you pay money to them for the privilege of breathing has finally come to pass! It's what we fought the King for, right?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 26, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    @bandersen – “Get the Federal government out of everything from defining marriage…”

    Glad to know you’re against DOMA and in favor of letting States decide for themselves whether or not to sanction same-sex marriages… I wouldn’t have guessed.

    @Jim Cobabe – “countless millions of unborn babies are murdered and unceremoniously discarded in dumpsters.”

    And what exactly does that have to do with an insurance mandate meant to cover birth control and things like the Plan B (so-called Morning After) pill?

    Even granting that Plan B terminates a fertilized egg (the science suggests otherwise), is it your contention that a fertilized egg is the same as a baby?

    Keep in mind this egg (even at 3 days old) is so small that if placed in your hand you would not be able to see it without a microscope. Needless to say it has no organs, blood, bones or human features of any kind.

    Just something to think about before you start tossing out gruesome & evocative statements like the one above…

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    Bottom line, their body.

    Not yours.

    When you believe that your moral platitudes can dictate another human beings body…

    well, we have 100,000 people in America who need an organ transplant.

    Right now.

    Put your kidney where your mouth is.

  • Granny Saint George, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    As a 60+ woman too young for Medicare, imagine my frustration that I am required to pay for MATERNITY CARE AND forced to sign up for PEDIATRIC DENTAL CARE in order for my insurance policy to be compliant and avoid a penalty. I CHOSE not to sign up for my own dental plan because it didn't make financial sense in my case, but I am FORCED to pay for some other people's children dental care.

    Can I say IMPEACH loudly enough?! Not only are the Democratic sheep following their shepherd over the cliff...they have tied us all to them and we are at the edge.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    Stalwart Sentinel - But the courts have already said that "corporations are people" in the political sphere. What makes the religious sphere different?

    A business owner has the right to operate his or her business. If employees want these types of contraceptives, go work where they are offered. If these companies cannot attract employees becasue of their policies, then they will need to adjust or go out of business. This is called freedom of choice and it used to be a desirable thing in out country.

    Today, there is still a choice as long as a person's choice happens to agree with the far left. If it does not, then the person is a bigot and not deserving of freedom....

  • dan76 san antonio, TX
    Nov. 26, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    To Granny;

    From your monicker, one must assume you've had children and subsequently grandchildren. Why then were childless members of society required to pay school district taxes to support your kin's education?

  • ConservativeCommonTater West Valley City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 12:13 p.m.

    "The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the company on its claims under the 1993 law and the Constitution, saying "for profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise."

    This sounds like a rational and non-sectarian decision. Churches and religions that are in the business of business should not be allowed multitudes of different laws pertaining to their particular beliefs. Business has one set of standards, religions have others.

    Would this or any other business be able to tell their employees how they could spend their paychecks? Health coverage is a benefit, as is the paycheck. They should not dictate how an employee uses benefits or pay.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    @CI & Moutanman;

    It isn't "free stuff" when the employee PAYS the premiums.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    Tyler D,
    No employer is paying for anything – right. Just like your argument that CO2 is toxic.

    Pagan,
    You are arguing against the administration. What changed your mind? The administration is forcing their amorality on others. That definitely is NOT freedom.

    Sentinel,
    The OWNERS of those companies do. Those companies do not exist in a vacuum.

    Granny,
    You have no rights, didn’t you know that?

    Dan76,
    Do you truly believe granny is not now paying property taxes to support someone else’s kids' school?

    Tater,
    why do liberals ignore “the free exercise thereof” part of the 1st amendment?

    Ranch,
    The employer pays – take your argument up with Tyler.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    Waiting to see a corporation get baptized.

    Waiting to see a corporation be given Last Rights by a priest.

    Waiting to see a corporation register to vote.

    Waiting to see a corporation be executed for a capital crime.

    Waiting to see a corporation listed as the mother/father of a child.

    Corporations are not people - they are collections of assets operating under the protection of law. Can a corporation have a religion? Only if my computer can, also.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    Most religions have their own set of unique restrictions that their want their adherents to follow. For the most part, this is the thorn that comes with the rose of encouragement to be better people and hope for a happy next life.

    Its hard enough to live by all the restrictions that one's own religion imposes, lets hope the Supreme Court doesn't allow employers to attempt to impose their religious restrictions on their employees.

    If this happens, better hope your company isn't purchased by Christian Scientists which don't believe in going to doctors .. AT ALL.. .

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    @lost in DC;

    Does your employer pay your premiums? I know that my premiums, deducted from each paycheck, amount to hundreds of dollars every month.

    People who pay their premiums should be able to decide on whether or not they want a plan that provides for THEIR needs, NOT the "religious views" of their employer.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 26, 2013 1:41 p.m.

    @lost in DC – “No employer is paying for anything – right.”

    Look up the word ‘compensation.’ The only thing your employer is paying for is your time… after that, however you choose to spend your earned compensation is up to you (including on premiums to pay for the large group policy your employer offers – again, as compensation).

    The employer only pays (for himself) if he is a policy participant. But to say that he can then dictate policy coverage for everyone is no different than saying so can every other premium payer… in which case we would have no large group market due to anarchy.

    @lost in DC – “why do liberals ignore “the free exercise thereof” part of the 1st amendment?”

    Perhaps for the same reason conservatives ignore the “congress shall make no law respecting” part. Also, as the SC has always affirmed (e.g., Scalia in Employment Division v Smith), free exercise does not mean religious people can ignore civil law (i.e., be laws unto themselves).

    But nice to hear from you again… I’ve missed your ad hominems and factually challenged statements masquerading as arguments.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 1:51 p.m.

    Ranch & Tyler D:

    I work in human resources. Most companies pay a large part of the premium (up to 85%). Employees pay the other part. In my case, I will pay about $220 per month next year and my employer will pay about $1,150 in premium for me and my family.

    Also, most plans are "self-insured". This means that the employer, not the insurance company, pays the claims (until they hit a pre-set amount). For example, I go to the pharmacy and pay $35 for a prescription. The total cost of that medication under the insurance plan is $100. Guess who covers the other $65? My employer, not the insurance company.

    Most employers pay huge amounts in medical benefits. As a business owner (public or private), I would want a say in where all of that money is going....

  • ConservativeCommonTater West Valley City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 1:57 p.m.

    Mountanman
    Hayden, ID

    If you guys want birth control pills, pay for them yourselves! Stop trying to force other people to be responsible for your body and what you choose to put into it or do with it!

    Thank you for your position, now I'm sure that it also means that those of us that can't get pregnant shouldn't have to pay for those that do. Glad to see you are with us.

  • ConservativeCommonTater West Valley City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 1:57 p.m.

    lost in DC

    "Tater,
    why do liberals ignore “the free exercise thereof” part of the 1st amendment?"

    No one is preventing anyone from exercising their religious beliefs. Forcing others to share those beliefs is the issue at hand.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 2:18 p.m.

    @lost in DC
    probably because until recently those of faith have not tried to extend their right to free exercise thereof so far beyond ecclesiastical duties and practices into every realm of their secular lives. The courts have long held that when churches are acting outside their ecclesiastical duties and engaging is secular commerce they are not immune form secular laws.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 2:42 p.m.

    Liberals need to take their Hobby Lobby business over to the Quilted Bear. That will show em.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 2:55 p.m.

    from secular laws.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    If the Supreme Court believes that corporations are people, It seems likely that the court will rule that corporations can impose their religious belief upon their employees. The sad part about that is that it adds to the chains that bind employees to their master employers in the slavery of employment.

    People of the American religion of secularism will see this as a step toward a religious government. And if you think wars between economic forces are bad just wait until the afterlife is added to the booty.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Nov. 26, 2013 3:02 p.m.

    RedWings

    You state, "the courts have already said that "corporations are people" in the political sphere. What makes the religious sphere different?" That is actually not true, the SCOTUS did not say that. I assume you are referring to Citizens United which held that corporations could make political expenditures under the free speech right granted in the 1st Amendment. As noted above by others, one example to rebut your assertion is that corporations cannot vote so they are not people in the political sphere; neither could a corporation run or hold political office. The same is true in the religious sphere.

    You also say, "[a] business owner has the right to operate his or her business" which is only partly accurate. The correct phrase is: a business owner has the right to operate his or her business in compliance with the law. The law trumps a business owner's "right" to operate his/her business as he/she pleases - which is why Hobby Lobby et al are breaking the law.

    lost in DC

    If you want to claim that a corporation is an extension of the owner, prove it via statute or case law. Your entire argument depends on it.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 3:11 p.m.

    Some people base their objection to contraception on the notion that life begin at conception, other people have different starting points. Some people believe that individuals existed in heaven long before life. If life is eternal does it have a starting point?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 26, 2013 3:43 p.m.

    @RedWings – “I would want a say in where all of that money is going....”

    OK…

    But if we say an employer should have full control of the insurance policy (a point I’m only conceding for the sake of argument), wouldn’t that open up a totally unmanageable can of worms?

    I can imagine all sorts of scenarios where employers or not completely up front about what their insurance doesn’t cover leaving the employee in the lurch if/when they need those services (a blood transfusion for a Christian Scientist company employee).

    Or even if they are up front, the employee taking the job (and risk) because, maybe they’re the only good employer in town, only later when the need arises to be left on their own.

    If the SC rules this way (highly doubtful I believe given past precedents) perhaps the best solution would be to allow those employers to completely opt out of providing insurance and paying a wage that would allow their employees to purchase their own (more expensive without the large group discount) policy.

    Either way, we need to decouple medical insurance from jobs.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    Bottom line is this– the majority of items sold at Hobby Lobby come from China, so they already condone abortion.
    They are willing to look the other way in order to increase their bottom line, this is about control of their employees plain and simple.

  • GiuseppeG Murray, Utah
    Nov. 26, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    re: Blue

    That was a pretty good post. I liked it even though I suspect we disagree on the issue. Regarding - "Waiting to see a corporation listed as the mother/father of a child."

    Do some research on where the mother/father of a child falls on the legal priority over said child. I believe you will be surprised how far down the list they are. Perhaps the day of seeing a corporation (legal firm?) listed as the mother/father....or at least legal guardian...of a child isn't all that distant.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 4:36 p.m.

    A lot of hot issues that people care for or don't care for can be disguised under freedom of religion.

    I have always wondered who's right trumps who's. A religious person could easily claim they do not want to serve black people because it is against their religious beliefs but a black person could claim their civil rights and the 14th amendment was violated. Who wins?

  • GiuseppeG Murray, Utah
    Nov. 26, 2013 4:41 p.m.

    re: Tyler D:
    "Either way, we need to decouple medical insurance from jobs."

    Tyler, Hobby Lobby and any other employer already has that ability....reduce hours below the bar of being required to provide insurance. Hire 80 part-timers to replace 40 full timers. Problem solved from a company perspective. But is that what we really want?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 4:56 p.m.

    Bottom line is this– the majority of items sold at Hobby Lobby come from China, so they already accept abortion in order to save a few dollars. They are willing to look the other way in order to increase their bottom line, this is about control of their employees plain and simple.

  • Mr. Smitty Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 5:05 p.m.

    I don't think a religious believer should have special rights with regard to health insurance they offer their employees. What if a religious believer doesn't believe in a vaccination? What about blood transfusions? How far to do we extend such special rights beyond health insurance? Should an employer who believes in prayer over medicine receive special rights and be exempt from having first aid kits in their work place? It's time we stop giving religious believers special rights.

    At any rate, this is about control. It's about a religious person who wants to control the sexual lives of women in the name of religion. It's about controlling women. Yes, of course they can purchase birth control elsewhere, but it is obnoxious for religious folks to expect special rights with respect to a reasonable law that mandates birth control.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 26, 2013 5:10 p.m.

    @Tyler D:
    "Since the law – which simply mandates that insurance, part of all employee’s paid compensation, cover things people want..."

    If the employer is paying the insurance premium... he/she is also paying for insurance coverage. Take out contraceptives, etc., and the premium should reduce. Thus, the employer is paying for these services contrary to their religious rights. If the premium does not reduce, the employer is being scammed.

    "...Hobby Lobby et al should lose their case in a 9-0 decision."

    You got that backwards.

    @Stalwart Sentinel:
    "...so I bet you can prove to me where the laws of the United States grant corporations a will, conscience, and religion."

    You're a little confused, Stalwart... Companies (i.e., corporations) are not people... they're persons created by law to conduct certain commercial, etc., activities. People have a will, can have religion and conscience. Persons, created by law, do not.

    "I'm sorry but the owners of the companies are not special..."

    Everyone is special... Including you.

    "... they do not have a legally-recognized right to exert their personal morality through their company."

    They do if they are paying the bill, the effect of which reduced their take on the company.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 26, 2013 5:41 p.m.

    @dan76:
    "From your monicker, one must assume you've had children and subsequently grandchildren. Why then were childless members of society required to pay school district taxes to support your kin's education?"

    I'll answer for granny... the country provides education for the masses to ensure that freedom is preserved. Even though granny has no children she enjoys the freedom that an educated citizenry provides/ensures.

    @Blue:
    "Corporations are not people - they are collections of assets operating under the protection of law. Can a corporation have a religion? Only if my computer can, also."

    A corporation is a 'person' created by law. The reason being so that it can (among other things) sue and be sued separate and apart from its owner(s)... and to protect the owner(s) from such action. Think of a corporation with say 100,000 owners (stockholders). Can you imagine the confusion/complication if 100,000 owners wanted to sue someone for some legal infraction rather than just one 'person' doing the suing? You obviously need a class in corporate law.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2013 6:17 p.m.

    How far down the chain of financial connections does moral responsibility go? The contraceptive mandate in the ACA does not require Hobby Lobby or its employees to use contraceptives. It only requires them to make contraceptive coverage available in their insurance plans. Their premiums are commingled with those of all the other policy holders. The company never pays directly for any of the products it finds objectionable-- the insurer does. Hobby Lobby only acts as a passive intermediary to facilitate its employee's choice to purchase the insured products. It does not actively participate in the purchase nor directly fund the purchase nor use the product.

    What are the reasonable limits on moral culpability in dilute financial transactions? Is Hobby Lobby consistent in its application of its faith principles? Does the Hobby Lobby pension plan invest in pharmaceutical stocks that manufacture contraceptives? What about diversified mutual funds that include pharmaceuticals? What about purchase of products from or investments in companies that offer contraceptive coverage in their employee plans? They are still financially linked and Hobby Lobby shares responsibility in objectionable activity. To be consistent, the company would have to sever financial ties with any other party that facilitates contraceptive use.

  • Way of the Warrior Arlington, WA
    Nov. 26, 2013 7:41 p.m.

    Following Hobby Lobby's logic, I don't want to provide my employees with money because they'll just buy alcohol with it and drinking alcohol is against my religious beliefs. Forcing me to pay my employees money so they can buy alcohol is a violation of my religious rights!

  • Neanderthal Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 27, 2013 12:49 a.m.

    @Way of the Warrior--

    No, no. It's more like Hobby Lobby saying...

    "We're maintaining a fund to cover employee healthcare needs but it will not cover things like flying to Hawaii or the Caymans to see a doctor, things that are unlawful/illegal such as purchase/use of marijuana/cocaine, and things against our (Hobby Lobby proprietors) religion such as killing a child developing in the womb (abortion)... But if you'd like to do these things with the wages we pay to, go for it."

    "We don't have the time to personally manage this fund so we've elected to turn it over to a separate company call GEICO to manage."

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Nov. 27, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    Granny, you're not forced to pay for maternity for yourself. You're entering a very large risk pool, and many of its members do need it.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 27, 2013 4:44 p.m.

    Neanderthal said:

    "We're maintaining a fund to cover employee healthcare needs but it will not cover things like flying to Hawaii or the Caymans to see a doctor, things that are unlawful/illegal such as purchase/use of marijuana/cocaine, and things against our (Hobby Lobby proprietors) religion such as killing a child developing in the womb (abortion)... But if you'd like to do these things with the wages we pay to, go for it."

    Insurance is Not a gift from your employer, as someone already pointed out it is part of a compensation package which includes your wages and any other compensation, So Employees are using "Their wages" not the companies.
    What the company pays towards your premiums is part of your wages. To entice corporations to treat employees like humans the government gives them tax incentives to do so, this does not make their contribution theirs.

    Birth control is not "killing a child developing in the womb" no matter what your fanatical belief system may be, and is not part of ACA.

  • Neanderthal Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 27, 2013 7:43 p.m.

    @Happy Valley Heretic:
    "So Employees are using 'Their wages' not the companies."

    Too funny!! It's not employee wages else it would be taxed... and it ain't.

    "Birth control is not 'killing a child developing in the womb'..."

    Abortion is.

    "...and is not part of ACA."

    What? Of course it is... or will be when Obamacare is fully implemented starting next year.