|
Clod,
"..employer-provided coverage is the norm..."
I agree, and I should clarify: 'mandatory' (as I use it) is not only the legal mandate (law) but also the cultural imperative (this is now things are done).
Where we disagree: if you want services and products to assume 'proper value' in a market, take out as many of the extraneous players in the market as you can.
If the market (buyer and seller; demand and supply) is allowed to operate with only minimal restraint all products and services assume a proper value, a value that may fluctuate wildly for any number of reasons, but a value in keeping with the buyer and the seller; demand and supply.
Every extraneous player simply adds to 'cost' without adding to 'value'.
#
Dana,
"they are doing so on the grounds of something that is untrue"
I get that and -- within the context of the SC ruling -- I see your point.
Which, again, is why I think the ruling is a fertile ground for unintended consequence.
If HL had taken the route of property ownership instead of religious objection then -- as I say up-thread -- 'how a body uses his or her property may not make any sense to me, but it doesn't have to make sense to me cuz it ain't 'my' property'.
I got an idea why the HL folks didn't assert this as a property matter, but I'll leave that for another time.
|