« WA Marriage Equality Bill Passes with Some Republican Support | Main | White House to 'Walk Back' the HHS Mandate Today »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Steve Shiffrin

I do not understand why there is a measurement problem (though there
may be). I would think you could compare what other employers pay
for the same insurance, but including contraception.

link wheel

The federal government via Health and Human Services can offer low to no cost contraception coverage for men (who want vasectomies) and women (who want anything from birth control pills to a tubal ligation) whose employers refuse to offer such services on religious grounds. There could be a token charge for this "special birth control insurance" which will be waived for anyone making less than a certain amount of money.

Conor O'Reilly

Steve, you can't measure what wage a conscientiously objecting employer would have paid without an exemption so you can't calculate what extra amount should be added to the wage.

All is not lost however because, in an transparent job market, conscientiously objecting employers can't profit from the religious exemption. They are forced by the job market to come up with a compensation package equal to or better than what is being offered by competing employers. However, for this to happen it is critical that the fact that they provide more limited coverage be spelled out clearly for all prospective employees. Then those job candidates can make up their own mind whether the wages paid compensate to the more limited insurance coverage.

The comments to this entry are closed.