|
farglebargle -> RE: Catholic Bishops' Fight Against HHS Mandate (3/20/2012 6:49:57 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:
Paychecks are an exchange. The employee works (hopefully) and the employer pays them (hopefully, well).
Insurance, vacations, company cars, etc. used to be called "percs". They're little "gimmes" thrown in to sweeten the pot (presumably to lure the best of the best to that company).
I've had the good fortune to score some nice perks over the years: two trips to New Zealand, a stint at adventure school, an interview with the guy who found the Titanic, a lovely afternoon with Jane Goodall, a staring contest with a lion (he won), the chance to feed an anteater. Also some nice offices and access to a fine library. No car, though. I'm very grateful for the cool perks that my work life has thrown my way.
Not for a minute, though, would I count my health insurance among them. Perhaps I'm one of those "professional victim" employees, but I have always considered my insurance to be part of my compensation--and my employers have always framed it that way, taking pains to point out that my total compensation comprised far more than my paycheck.
To my "entitled" mindset, compensation ceases to be the employer's money once it's paid to a worker or to a third party on behalf of that employee. So it's really not the church's money that's being used to fund contraception or blood transfusions or what-have-you.
But, DC, once again: it isn't the money. It's asking the church to be a "middle man". It is only through the existence of the job, created by the church that the employees get group health rates.
That access ... that "middle man service" means their hands are "dirty" also (in their mind). My guns analogy was pretty dead on. Surely, you wouldn't want to help me do something that you felt was a blight to mankind?
Peace and comfort,
Michael
Anything can be INDIRECTLY related to anything else.
They're only "middlemen" if you're a damned COMMUNIST, and don't believe that the EMPLOYEE or INSURER'S money is in fact, theirs. We do not hold our bank accounts COLLECTIVELY. So, only in your socialist dreams is there any connection.
Once the church writes 'PAY TO THE ORDER OF" on a paycheck, IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY ANYMORE!
You are absolutely correct. As soon as the Church pays the employee, it's the employee's money. However, since the insurance negotiations occur prior to giving them to the employee, the coverage negotiations are not the employee's. Let's say the insurance coverage is cash money. The Church negotiates this cash money with the insurer. Until that cash money is paid to the employee, it isn't the employee's. If the Church is negotiating the inclusion of BC into that pile o' cash money, isn't it acting as a conduit for you? That answer is, yes, yes it is.
There is no 'negotiation' between the employer and insurer. The employees will get only what the insurer offers. The employer doesn't do anything but pass folders back and forth.
THE INSURANCE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURED AND INSURER. THE EMPLOYER IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT.
THE INSURANCE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURED AND INSURER. THE EMPLOYER IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT.
THE INSURANCE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURED AND INSURER. THE EMPLOYER IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT.
THE INSURANCE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURED AND INSURER. THE EMPLOYER IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT.
THE INSURANCE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURED AND INSURER. THE EMPLOYER IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT.
THE INSURANCE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURED AND INSURER. THE EMPLOYER IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT.
THE INSURANCE CONTRACT IS BETWEEN THE INSURED AND INSURER. THE EMPLOYER IS NOT A PARTY TO THE CONTRACT.
|
|
|
|
