29 Feb 2012 3:47 pm
MistyBlue: Are you really such a dense jackass, or do you just play one on this forum?It took years of hard work, study and practice.You actually made me laugh. It must be a sign of the Apocalypse. Misty: Once again, I was talking about Roy Blunt's amendment which would allow employers (and/or insurance carriers) to opt out of federal benefit mandates, not just for contraceptives, but for ANY treatment or ANY condition they claimed was contrary to their religious and/or MORAL beliefs as well. Moral beliefs don't necessarily have anything to do with any church, Catholic or otherwise. An employer could deny treatment for cervical cancer, because it's caused by HPV, which is transmitted sexually.Or they could deny coverage for treatment of alcoholism or any health issue associated with drinking, if that is against their moral beliefs.Clem:Off the top of my head, yes, if accompanied by sufficient Free Market Reform that would ensure a wide range of competition.I'd allow purchasing of health insurance across state lines, under the power and intent of the Commerce Clause, for example.Why shouldn't that be allowed?Is it just me or was that totally non-responsive to my post?My question was:Once we've accepted the principle that employers or insurance providers have the right to refuse coverage of any services, treatments, or medications included in a health-care mandate that clashes with their moral or religious beliefs, (see Senator Roy Blunt's [R] bill), where does it stop?Are you familiar with Roy Blunt's Amendment?Sen. Roy Blunt's amendment to the Affordable Care Act would allow employers to deny coverage not just for contraception but for ANY treatment or ANY condition they claimed was contrary to their religious or MORAL beliefs.Looks like a big slippery slope to me. Edited by MistyBlue, 29 February 2012 - 04:53 PM.