Employers of faith, who oppose abortifacients, contraception, sterilization, or some other mandate under Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, face stark choices:
(1) They can organize under the exemption: certain houses of worship who qualify under the particular section of the Internal Revenue Code, serve almost exclusively members of their denomination, employ almost exclusively members of their denomination, and focus their primary mission on the inculcation of religious values. Because Patient Protection Affordable Care Act builds upon the taxing power, and particularly the income tax, none of the rights and liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply; the income-tax amendment superseded them. So these employers must prove their eligibility beyond reasonable doubt to a party inclined toward bias against them. Moreover, these criteria raise troubling questions: is worship of God and preaching the Gospel, even exclusively toward believers, “inculcation of religious values?” Can churches oppose abortion (and voting for its proponents) on theological grounds yet maintain their exemption? How many new members can they accept? And more.
(2) Cease to offer any form of health insurance to any employees. If employer employs more than 50 persons at least 30 hours per week, then a special tax of $2000/employee may apply. Employers will want to stay below this threshold, hiring mostly part-timers. In a collapsed labor market, employees so hired will be grateful for any work. If, however, employee lives in household that earns more than the filing threshold ($12,850/year for a single parent), employee will pay a large tax ($2085/year if said single parent of said income has four or more children). Employees subject to the tax presumably will reduce remuneration of employees concomitantly to recoup the money necessary to pay said tax.
(3) Cease to employ anyone and leave business entirely.
(4) Provide the coverage at extreme financial cost here and the risk of eternal damnation hereafter.
The law grants no other options for employers. Because of the high cost of medical care, many Americans therefore will cease to use any professional medical resources. Fortunately, the law does not prohibit yet the dissemination of medically related knowledge through books, websites, and other media for amateur medicine; the provision of uncompensated first aid among friends and acquaintances, which may involve suddenly heavily taxed medical devices still publicly available over the counter; or the avoidance of the government-sanctioned pro-death medical establishment.
For women, these limited arrangements may increase significantly the risks associated with childbearing. For those of sufficient wealth, however, the law does not prohibit—at least as far as we yet know, but Congress passed the law so that we may find out what is in it—paying doctors and hospitals exorbitant fees as a cash customer. Nor does it yet require explicitly said doctors and hospitals to kill babies or engage in other ethically compromising behavior as a condition of their entry into or persistence in the profession. Nevertheless, further regulations not yet announced and future federal legislation may degrade even these caveats.
Put simply, health insurance soon will be a benefit of the past, and higher taxes a feature of the future. This situation will degrade access to actual health care for millions of marginally healthy Americans (i.e., those economically productive with significant medical expenses) who in the future will scavenge, die, or live in pain. Employers may have compassion on them but cannot provide any form of health insurance. The diminishing middle class continues an ever more precarious existence.
“the law does not prohibit—at least as far as we yet know, but Congress passed the law so that we may find out what is in it—paying doctors and hospitals exorbitant fees as a cash customer.”
Not sure this isn’t already baked in. For Medicare and Medicaid patients it clearly already is. Dr’s already pay big fines if their treat a Medicare or Medicaid patient outside the approved payment schedules. For the rest of us, Section 1131 of the act prohibits Qualified Health Plans (all insurance companies, hospital plans HMO’s etc) from contracting or paying any doctor who doesn’t comply with HHS regs regarding quality health care. I strongly suspect that Dr’s who practice outside the government approved payment plans will be prohibited from receiving any payments from insurance companies, hospitals, HMO’s etc. That means Dr’s will have to opt out of the system entirely and that there would need to be an infrastructure of testing gear, emergency rooms, MRI’s etc that would handle their patients’ problems when it was beyond that doctor. Will there be enough demand to build that outside infrastructure? I don’t know.