Should employers be allowed to deny chemotherapy coverage to employees?

[Indy Texas]

Now that we've set the precedent that people can arbitrarily pick and choose whether or not to cover universally accepted medical treatments because they don't like them, it seems only fair.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Should an employer be able to not provide health insurance coverage?  I believe so - there's no fundamental reason to require the two to be linked. Therefore they should be able to provide partial coverage also, so long as they are up front about it.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I would imagine chemo treatment would be a centerpiece of any health insurance plan.

[DC Al Fine]

Should an employer be able to not provide health insurance coverage?  I believe so - there's no fundamental reason to require the two to be linked. Therefore they should be able to provide partial coverage also, so long as they are up front about it.

This

[bedstuy]

Sure, we ought to have a single payer health insurance plan that would obviate the need for mandated employer coverage.  But, we don't and it's not going to happen in the near future in all likelihood. 

In our current framework, we ought to have a basic minimum to qualify as health insurance.  The employer's idiosyncratic beliefs about medical issues should be irrelevant.  You need a basic standard and we at some point need to make judgements based on empirical medical facts, not kooky beliefs. 

Unfortunately, the people who pushed the contraception situation have a host of potential targets, forget cancer drugs.  It's really anything that could theoretically interfere with implantation that could be exempted.  Something like ibuprofen is a perfect example because a far-right Christian considers ibuprofen to be tantamount to an abortion by their logic.

[Never]

Should an employer be able to not provide health insurance coverage?  I believe so - there's no fundamental reason to require the two to be linked. Therefore they should be able to provide partial coverage also, so long as they are up front about it.

This

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Private employment should not exist.

[nclib]

No.

Should an employer be able to not provide health insurance coverage?  I believe so - there's no fundamental reason to require the two to be linked. Therefore they should be able to provide partial coverage also, so long as they are up front about it.

I suppose the difference is that many would rule out a job that wouldn't provide any health care, but may overlook the fine print and/or not expect to need chemotherapy (or another procedure for instance) before hiring.

That said, health care should not be employer-based.

[7,052,770]

Under the existing framework we have, no. (Starting in 2015), all employers with over 50 employees should provide comprehensive health insurance to their employees with all essential health benefits included, or else pay a fine.

You could certainly make an argument for abolishing employer-based insurance altogether and requiring all 300,000,000 Americans to purchase health insurance on the Exchange, but it sure would be tough to keep that website running on the deadline days.

[RI]

Any legitimate health coverage should include necessary life-saving procedures, I would think. I also agree that there is no reason that employment and health coverage should be linked. In light of the fact that the healthcare market has more market failures than almost any other, government provision of some sort is necessary, though I don't know if I'm sold on single payer yet.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Should an employer be able to not provide health insurance coverage?  I believe so - there's no fundamental reason to require the two to be linked. Therefore they should be able to provide partial coverage also, so long as they are up front about it.

This

Or at the very minimum, they shouldn't be required to subsidize chemotherapy coverage to their employees.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Private employment should not exist.