1. how are they involved in the health decisions? until recently they didn't even have to provide health insurance at all. 2. you still don't get it. they aren't investing anything. 3. once again. if you want birth control paid for go work at CVS
What if they supplied you with x dollars for health insurance and you purchased health insurance that covered something they didn't agree with? Is that the same as them directly paying for something that they are against? Or is there a logical difference? Not arguing, just asking what the perceived difference is.
re: 2. YOU don't get it. There are options available to avoid those sort of issues, and they chose/choose not to take them. You know that.
1) we have no idea if their 401k plan offers said options. the vast majority do not. 2) why in the world would they restrict what their EMPLOYEES are investing in? in particular, given the fact that the amount of profit from contraception is a miniscule percentage of the portfoilo? wouldn't you rightfully say they were nutjobs if they did this? how would this be different from saying their employees can't go purchase contraception WITH THEIR OWN MONEY?
I'm all for the legalization of drugs. Then they can buy their speed with out someone having to cooked in methlabs.
See here's where I can't get my head around libertarianism. What if his customers want his product and he harms no ones else?
