Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are immoral.
And they refuse them.
Christian Scientists believe that most modern medicine is immoral.
And as is their right, they refuse participation.
The Church of the Holy Buck believes that any treatment that negatively affects the bottom line is immoral.
Any treatment can undergo a price increase so I don't know what you're talking about.
Should all of those be allowed to refuse to pay for any of them?
Yes: that's what a truly free society where people are responsible for themselves--as opposed to our increasingly totalitarian nanny-state--does: leave people who do not engage in any direct harm alone. Of course, your ilk are attempting to redefine mere verbal disapproval as "harm".
If a religious organisation finds that it is immoral to perform a particular service, then they are welcome to get out of the business of providing that service.
In other words, you believe in the power of the State to dictate how any service shall be performed, and therefore what can and cannot be accessible, and not the right to offer a service you know to obtain a living? Bet you believe in the right to free bread but define "business" as a non-right. Hint: business is just human activity to exchange goods and [abilities] so as to obtain the means to live--and for some who are lucky to have a little extra maybe to go have some fun, whether wholesome or whether that includes hookers and blo.
No one is forcing churches to be in the insurance business and I can cite several passages from the bible, including quotes from Jesus and St. Paul that indicate that they shouldn't [your grammar is wrong here]
I'm sure you can cite the beatitudes to reimagine Jesus as an ethical-liberal hippie-guru like a lot of want-Him-for-his-name's-authority sophists too, but you'd be wrong and and idiot.
If they want to be religions, they can have any crazy rules that they want. If they want to be businesses
Great, "fuck them and let them die", I'm sure you'll try to write rules in accordance with "those who don't work, don't eat' (also in the bible) so they can have the right only to die if you don't like them.
Newflash you know-nothing bigotted my-way-or-no-rights-for-your statist totalitarian nutjob: people like me are getting so fed up with threats-----even to others' rights: I lost my evangsmellical religion by disassembling the mass of contradictory bullshit I was taught as a kid when I finally had time not only to read the bible, but learn the historical data and hermeneutical principles--and smattering of Hebrew and Greek to handle exegetical tools and original language dictionaries and even a Greek New Testament now and then: it was quite useful actually--I fed the scoffers on our university plaza the questions necessary to expose the professional preachers who came for being charlatans and know-nothings that they were. Sincere know-nothings, but doing God's work for them seemed to mean they needed only know a few simple things, though pretending to be sophisticated (not just to other's) was a perk I guess--anything to get prayers of acceptance of Jesus.
But quite seriously to our times, here in America
"No one is forcing [PEOPLE] in the insurance business [to provide services against their will or deny them the right to their trade or chosen profession, because since]" "they can have any crazy rules that they want" [but nobody can be forced to purchase from them rather than another business if they feel their offering is better], [and since we have well-functioning courts based on rule of law principles and a high regard for substance over formalities and procedural technicalities that aren't made-up for the courts' own convenience any failure to provide what was agreed will result in a sure victory for the insured in their claims]; all because we thankfully live in a liberal or free society where rule of law--not merely the legal but law in that old sense of trumping arbitrary mandates and power since the latter destroy liberty--protects individuals in their right to purchase as well as to provide goods and services at their own rather than the government's leisure and, should the government feel there is an imminent need or problem for the general welfare, it can raise taxes and take any credit or blame and risk of failure or success on itself, erect the necessary programs or engage in the necessary actions, and get it all done for themselves without interfering in the economic privileges and immunities of the private markets! Isn't our nation of liberty and real law vs. arbitrary force swell! Glad we don't have totalitarian progressives or nepotistic euro-style aristocratic conservatives to screw things up. And that our populace isn't dumb enough to be duped by totalitarian arguments from force and authoritarianism, or arbitrary narrowing scope of religion to legally designated activities consisting only of singing and dancing and praying and preaching; or deciding that should you engage in productive activity to obtain a living and they call it "business", those in power and their supports can't conscript it for their own ideas and purposes and call it a modern privilege in the sense of something only to be done with their permission, according to how they see fit for it to be done: that would mean we would all be subject to the whim of whoever takes power, at any time, and have Old-european style authoritarianism, paleo-paleo conservativism! That would terrible.
Thankfully, if the people of these United States want a law or a service with qualities and features not yet offered, they have to abide by the Constitution in the first case; in the second, form an organization and make it and offer it themselves. Thankfully if the government wants to do something it has to abide within the intention and scope of meaning of the original words of the Constitution--thank God neither the progressives nor the quasi-Constitutionalists like Robert Bork et. al. with his denial of natural rights in favor of authority, have become influential or gained and advantage or station on the high courts; so that we may remain free and confident that whether rich or poor, in a majority or in a minority, no matter the case should someone make claims on our own property and interests or interfere with our ability to care for ourselves, they will lose at court; so that truly diverse--meaning disagreed and politically incorrect yet-unpunishable--supra-jurisdiction over varying and unlike societies with their own ways of living unregulable by either a naitonal or even the local levels of government, except to uphold contracts, prevent direct physical harm and deprivation of prior conditions enjoyed or properties owned, can flourish. Otherwise we would just, just...become subjects like the rest of the world, abused or approve by whatever power happens to take control, and filled with raving morons or useful idiots who even defend the powers that be--perhaps for benefiting from their tyranny in some way.
"And I'm glad to be an American, where at least I know I'm free...", and where I know my fellow citizens are well-educated rather than indoctrinated through a State apparatus that avoids facts in favor of politically-appointed committees and bureaus of "education" whose work is approved by the politicians and their stakeholders. Without a truly well-informed citizenry with diverse views, rather than a homogenous mis-education, we would be so...BONED.