And you expect simple health insurance to cover any of that?
This is getting ridiculous. We're talking about the damn pill, not life saving medicine here.
It has virtually no impact on employee health or productivity whatsoever.
Frankly, where the lower rungs of the work force are concerned, it's a lot cheaper to simply swap employees out than subsidize their healthcare anyway. They are essentially wholly expendable unskilled labor, who can be replaced at any moment's notice.
No, but they most certainly
do have the right to decide which treatments
their money will or will not go towards paying.
The idea that employer provided healthcare is any kind of "right" in the first place is simply absurd.
Again, if it's not
your money, it's not
your decision what it does or does not get spent on.
If you happen to have an employer who, out of the goodness of their heart, is willing to pay for any treatment under the sun, more power to you. However, do not imagine that it is anything to which you are
entitled as a matter of objective "right."
It is a privilege and a luxury, and a rather unnecessary one at that.
If it were my business, I wouldn't shell out a single dime for any of it.
As has already been established, neither of those things are "free," nor should they be.
Not my problem.
I don't give a damn what they do with regard to their personal lives. That is why the thing is known as a "personal life" in the first place.
I'm simply saying that there's no reason why any employer should be
forced to subsidize someone else's lifestyle.
Apparently, the SCOTUS agrees. :shrug:
I disagree, and so does the Supreme Court.