If companies only pay for part of the insurance, doesn't that mean that employees are playing for the other part? That employees pay anywhere from 200 to 1000 dollars a month based on age and number of beneficiaries, etc.,
Why is it then, that Hobby Lobby can pretend that they OWN the insurance outright? As if the employee is not paying any of it, because doesn't that make the beneficiary part "owner" of that insurance as well?
It seems to me, that Hobby Lobby is pretending that they are buying health insurance in a vacuum.
The Federal Government then pays subsidies to assist beneficiaries that qualify for financial assistance, so that also means that the government is part owner which is paid for by OUR tax dollars--some of which come from WOMEN!
Third, your cost will depend on how much money you make. You’ll be entitled to government subsidies if you earn up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. For an individual, that’s $45,960 a year. For a family of four, it is $94,200.I know this last part really sticks in the craw of Vulture Capitalists, just as much as coverage of Birth Control.
Your assets, such as your house or car, don’t matter here. It’s all about income.
Christian Science Monitor
Anyhow-- back to the point. HL and other business are one of 3 entities paying for the Affordable Care Act. So how is it, that we are having this discussion about women's comprehensive health care coverage in a manner that pretends the ENTIRE burden falls upon the companies like HL when clearly that is not how this works.
The Government pays for a portion which is supported by Tax Dollars. Tax dollars that unequally come from the blue collar sector.
The employee pays for a portion, the exception being those who qualify as too poor, or those who qualify under a hardship exemption.
The company pays for the last portion.
So 2/3rds of the Affordable Care Act is paid for by the people either individually AND through their taxes.
How is it, that any corporation should be allowed to pretend they pay exclusively (in terms of framing the debate) and that this gives them the entitlement to put religious exemptions on certain coverage, that denies a portion of the tax payers their fair and comprehensive medical coverage, when those (female) citizens pay taxes AND pay out of pocket to support the Affordable Care Act?
7:25 AM PT: Please don't miss these other HL diaries that make some really excellent points as well: