Agreed, that is the point, but I couldn't let the other issue, i.e. whether people have the right to turn insurance into what is effectively welfare, pass.
The fundamental problem is the tying of insurance to employment, which dates back to WWII when it was a way to work around government-imposed wage controls. If that hadn't become entrenched, this (and other issues) wouldn't be an issue (or issues). If one insurance company requires you to go to a pharmacist who refuses to sell a given medication, you could take your business elsewhere, and if enough people did so, they'd have to reconsider their position.
Of course, the converse issue is: from the "pro-life" pharmacist's point of view, we're talking about people wanting to force their personal version of morality on the pharmacist. Again, if people had a choice, there wouldn't be a problem.
Re: What is the function of insurance?
The fundamental problem is the tying of insurance to employment, which dates back to WWII when it was a way to work around government-imposed wage controls. If that hadn't become entrenched, this (and other issues) wouldn't be an issue (or issues). If one insurance company requires you to go to a pharmacist who refuses to sell a given medication, you could take your business elsewhere, and if enough people did so, they'd have to reconsider their position.
Of course, the converse issue is: from the "pro-life" pharmacist's point of view, we're talking about people wanting to force their personal version of morality on the pharmacist. Again, if people had a choice, there wouldn't be a problem.