3 ms·
I'm pro-choice. The exact same argument is used for requiring companies and insurance plans to pay for abortion.
by temp54679680544 8y ago
I'm pro-choice.
The exact same argument is used for requiring companies and insurance plans to pay for abortion.
- curo 8y agoThat doesn't weaken the argument, it just calls into question the argument that employers should pay for abortions.
- temp54679680544 8y agoWhere does it stop? When does compensation stop being the company's money and start being the employee's property to do with as they please?
- curo 8y agoIt never started. The employee's wages can be used however they please.
- ravitation 8y agoWhy are other forms of compensation (e.g. covering business expenses, or insurance) not equivalent to wages? That is his point.
- natrik 8y agoWhat if you don't consider it as compensation, but as an expense. ie. Working for X company will net me $150k in wages, however I will have to pay for my own meat meals, insurance, etc. I probably won't work here. Even though the company pays for only economy class flights and requires me to take one every 3 months.
- watwut 8y agoMaybe it is just me, but abortion and health care plans are in no way comparable to eating or not meat during company events. But, it absolutely is strong argument for change of the laws so that employer paid healthcare plans are not privileged against individual plans. That way, insurance would be paid by government or employee without having to pay more money then what employers do. The root abomination is that employer has such advantage on insurance market against individual. That would make healthcare kinda like eating dinner - none of employers business.