Poll: Most Americans Say Employers Should Cover Contraception

Religion News Service ^ | 12/3/12 | Daniel Burke

[Buckeye McFrog]

Never realized those 70 million post-menopausal women were so adamant on the issue. /sarc

[tm61]

so, all that talk about “keeping the gov’t out of my bedroom” appears to not apply when it comes to “free” birth control. what a surprize.

[jimt]

I don’t believe this poll.

[LibsRJerks]

Sure, why not? Employers and “the rich” should pay for everything. If a middle class person wants something but doesn’t have the income to pay for it, then employers and the rich should. This type of response has nothing to do with religion or moral issues. It has everything to do with people being conditioned for 80+ years of the Welfare State that someone else should pay for things that the people want.

**
Righteo. And don’t forget how IMPORTANT it is to eliminate all the healthcare and other “disparities” between the rich and the poor. Can’t be having any of that.

[Arthalion]

Agreed. I personally believe than an employer would be rather dumb not to offer it, but it should always be the employers choice.

As an employer, I really don't want my female employees getting pregnant. I have to make special accommodations for them, put up with employees chit chatting about pregnancy, and hire more expensive temps and pay other employees overtime to cover for them while they're sick, at doctors appointments, or out on maternity leave. And that's before we even get to the hit that I'm going to take when my health care costs go up due to increased utilization.

Economically, the best workforce is one that never gets sick or pregnant. I provide health care and contraception to my employees to try and make that happen...but no employer should ever be FORCED to provide anything but a paycheck.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Poll: Most Americans Say Employers Should Cover Contraception

Fine by me. Just put your diaphragm down on the table here and I'll throw a tarp over it...

[JCBreckenridge]

So compromise means capitulation? No.

[JCBreckenridge]

“As an employer, I really don’t want my female employees getting pregnant. I have to make special accommodations for them, put up with employees chit chatting about pregnancy, and hire more expensive temps and pay other employees overtime to cover for them while they’re sick, at doctors appointments, or out on maternity leave. And that’s before we even get to the hit that I’m going to take when my health care costs go up due to increased utilization.”

Incredibly shortsighted. May I ask what kind of business you run?

[Arthalion]

I run a technology consulting firm with 29 employees (about half of which are full-time and permanent). And there's nothing shortsighted about it. At the end of the day, it's a business. The only thing that really matters are the numbers on the ledger.

Sick and pregnant employees reduce productivity. Reduced productivity means reduced profit. Reduced profit, in a margin tight field like mine, is to be avoided at all costs.

Financially, it makes sense to keep my employees healthy and NOT pregnant. Both of those things cost me money. Since you can't legally fire people for getting sick or pregnant, preventing it is the next best thing.

Rising healthcare costs have made the argument a bit more tenuous, but it still stands. Being in tech, my aggregate overtime costs can approach $100 per hour per employee, and temp consultants usually cost me between $100 and $120 an hour. If someone is out sick or on maternity leave, I HAVE to pay someone else to cover their work. The cost of insuring all of my employees for a year is LESS than the cost of me bringing in consultants for 6 weeks to cover ONE employee being out on maternity leave.

So yeah, we offer contraceptive coverage. And encourage its use.

Still, nobody should be forced to offer it if they don't want. It makes sense for me, and in my experience makes sense for most businesses. I'd never expect a religiously based organization to offer it, and they should never be required to. NOBODY should be required to.

[ravenwolf]

Most americans are socialist then, that explains why Obomer stayed in.

[Chuckster]

Judging from the recent election, most Americans think someone else should pay for everything.

[ravenwolf]

Sure, why not? Employers and “the rich” should pay for everything. If a middle class person wants something but doesn’t have the income to pay for it, then employers and the rich should. This type of response has nothing to do with religion or moral issues. It has everything to do with people being conditioned for 80+ years of the Welfare State that someone else should pay for things that the people want.

---

You got that exactly right, the only reason religion is even mentioned is to get the more non religious to vote against the religious just because it is religion, more class warfare.

Religious against the non religious,
Non religious against the religious,
Drinkers against the smokers,
Smokers against the eaters,
Eaters against the drinkers and smokers,
health nuts against MacDonalds,
The environmentalists against everything.

This nation is just full of stupid socialist S.O.B,s.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, yes. Now hey HAVE to offer health insurance, or pay an extra $2,000 a year tax/poenalty/fine/fee/whatever-they-want-to-call-it for every full-time (defined as 30 hrs/week or more) employee.

Ay, there's the rub.

[onedoug]

“The South will rise again!”