Religious discrimination in insurance

[Rick Duncan]

--- "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at mail.law.ucla.edu> wrote:
 But the aggregate of
> this process will
> probably still be greater costs for other
> policyholders -- again, people not
> just practicing their own religions, something that
> I'm glad to see them do,
> but imposing the costs of their religions on others,
> and using the coercive
> machinery of government to do so.

Politically powerful groups are always able to impose
the cost of their preferred medical choices on others.
For example, my insurance costs just increased quite a
bit because many women insisted that our policy should
cover the cost of contraceptives (a product designed
not to treat a disease, but rather to disable a
properly functioning system). Should I be offended
that women were able to impose the costs of their
"planned parenthood" ideology on me by using the
coercive machinery of government? The same is true of
routine screening for breast cancer (covered) versus
routine screening for colon cancer (not covered).
Breast cancer has become a preferred political cause,
so routine screening for it is covered while routine
screening for many other kinds of cancer is not
covered. If it is ok for women to use government to
get coverage for treatments that matter to them, it
should be equally ok for religious persons to use the
law to accommodate their medical choices. Am I missing
something?

Cheers, Rick Duncan







=====
"Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs the storm."
    --President George W. Bush (quoting John Page)

"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow Galahad or Mordred; middle things are gone."  -C.S. Lewis

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com