Blunt Amendment in Transportation Bill? Slippery Slope!

Should employers have the right to object to health care coverage if it pertains to something they find immoral?

Well, PA Senators Toomey and Casey thought they should, but both men are probably very comfortable promoting what some might consider a very Catholic ideology.  The problem though, is that putting that kind of language into a Bill is probably a little foolhardy.  For example, some people have already suggested that a church that objects to alcohol use might want to object to alcohol related health problems in their employees, or their employees families.  What would stop them from making the same claim that Catholic Universities and Hospitals are making?

What if coverage is denied to people who contract an illness from let’s say MRSA st398?  That strain apparently comes from pigs.  Let’s pretend that there is a religion that considers eating pigs is against their faith….now how are we going to handle dealing with patients that get a serious staph infection from pork, or from working with pigs?

I don’t think that my concern will matter much, but I’m thinking that it is ridiculous that we are letting our health care be decided by the companies that are currently purchasing the health care policies.  I know that it seems like it should be okay for people to buy what they choose to buy, but who will decide these medical ethics questions?

Shouldn’t we just let science handle medical questions?

I’m just asking.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s