Obama's Birth Control Shift Does Nothing to Quell Storm

[jayem]

So, in fact, this new law is indeed new, which explains the big fuss.

Sure, the package of required preventive services without co-pay in all health plans is different from the current situation. But Congress obviously decided that the longer term public health benefits (including potential cost savings from prevention and early disease detection) justify the shorter term costs.

Re. employer obligations: employers are not required to offer health plans, BUT employers of 50 or more will be assessed a fee if an employee must use a tax credit to purchase health insurance through an exchange. My source doesn't specify if the fee is due when the employee is given additional compensation adequate to cover the premium fully.

 

[MachZer0]

Sure, the package of required preventive services without co-pay in all health plans is different from the current situation. But Congress obviously decided that the longer term public health benefits (including potential cost savings from prevention and early disease detection) justify the shorter term costs.

Re. employer obligations: employers are not required to offer health plans, BUT employers of 50 or more will be assessed a fee if an employee must use a tax credit to purchase health insurance through an exchange. My source doesn't specify if the fee is due when the employee is given additional compensation adequate to cover the premium fully.

I see nothing there that allows the government to deny anyone their Constitutionally protected religious liberties.

 

[Corey]

It seems the secular purpose here would be promiscuity. Regardless, women can achieve birth control at no cost all on their own so there is no compelling secular purpose

Birth control...I could take that as weasel words. I'll assume you mean birth control pills for the sake of comity.

In which case, obviously not...birth control pills cost money and obviously even more money if not covered by insurance. And it's clear you have no understanding of the biochemistry of women's health including cancer prevention if you think birth control pills are only for sex.

And even if they weren't, do you have a problem with women wanting a far more reliable method of birth control? I really don't know how to take your comment...if I was feeling less than charitable, I'd have to wonder if you just hate women in general or if it's women having the temerity to want to enjoy sex without worrying about pregnancy. Your comment just feels like a general attack on women. I'll edit this paragraph out if you edit yours.

 

[Corey]

I see nothing there that allows the government to deny anyone their Constitutionally protected religious liberties.

Hmmm...how about equal protection under the law, specifically, the right to medical appropriate treatment as determined by a qualified expert (i.e., a physician) and not a bishop.

Snap.

 

[MachZer0]

Birth control...I could take that as weasel words. I'll assume you mean birth control pills for the sake of comity.

In which case, obviously not...birth control pills cost money and obviously even more money if not covered by insurance. And it's clear you have no understanding of the biochemistry of women's health including cancer prevention if you think birth control pills are only for sex.

And even if they weren't, do you have a problem with women wanting a far more reliable method of birth control? I really don't know how to take your comment...if I was feeling less than charitable, I'd have to wonder if you just hate women in general or if it's women having the temerity to want to enjoy sex without worrying about pregnancy. Your comment just feels like a general attack on women. I'll edit this paragraph out if you edit yours.

I said exactly what I meant, so you assumed wrong.

 

[MachZer0]

Hmmm...how about equal protection under the law, specifically, the right to medical appropriate treatment as determined by a qualified expert (i.e., a physician) and not a bishop.

Snap.

The Bishops, as you call them, are not making any determination as to treatment. They are only making a determination as to what they will pay for. And that is not unusual. For instance, some insurance plans, if not most, don't pay for cosmetic surgeries. Yet, people still get cosmetic surgery. How? They pay for it themselves. So all a woman has to do is drop in to, say Walmart, drop off her prescription, pay for it and she has apparently fulfilled the desires of her heart.

 

[conamer]

The Bishops, as you call them, are not making any determination as to treatment. They are only making a determination as to what they will pay for. And that is not unusual. For instance, some insurance plans, if not most, don't pay for cosmetic surgeries. Yet, people still get cosmetic surgery. How? They pay for it themselves. So all a woman has to do is drop in to, say Walmart, drop off her prescription, pay for it and she has apparently fulfilled the desires of her heart.

They have to pay for it themselve? That is just heartless! Why do you hate woman??

 

[MachZer0]

They have to pay for it themselve? That is just heartless! Why do you hate woman??

If you think about it, this new law puts pregnancy in the same category as cancer. We should have known once Obama clarified for us that having children is a punishment.

 

[conamer]

If you think about it, this new law puts pregnancy in the same category as cancer. We should have known once Obama clarified for us that having children is a punishment.

It looks like the Dems plan is to drum up a fake story: That republicans want to ban BC while spending us into oblivion.

 

[Corey]

I said exactly what I meant, so you assumed wrong.

Then I guess it's extremely fair to ask if you hate women in general or just women that like to have sex...

 

[Corey]

The Bishops, as you call them, are not making any determination as to treatment. They are only making a determination as to what they will pay for. And that is not unusual. For instance, some insurance plans, if not most, don't pay for cosmetic surgeries. Yet, people still get cosmetic surgery. How? They pay for it themselves. So all a woman has to do is drop in to, say Walmart, drop off her prescription, pay for it and she has apparently fulfilled the desires of her heart.

Except of course that the standard of coverage for men is better than the standard of coverage for women. And yes...that is interfering with a person's right to life.

And just because I'm not so sure you understand how to make a valid argument by analogy: cosmetic surgery is not in the standard of care for any general health program....it's what's called...elective.

 

[MachZer0]

It looks like the Dems plan is to drum up a fake story: That republicans want to ban BC while spending us into oblivion.

Never let a crisis go to waste, even if you have to invent the crisis

 

[MachZer0]

Then I guess it's extremely fair to ask if you hate women in general or just women that like to have sex...

Ask if you want

 

[MachZer0]

Except of course that the standard of coverage for men is better than the standard of coverage for women. And yes...that is interfering with a person's right to life.

How so? Are men getting free coverage for birth control from the very organizations denying it to women?

And just because I'm not so sure you understand how to make a valid argument by analogy: cosmetic surgery is not in the standard of care for any general health program....it's what's called...elective.

So is birth control

 

[jayem]

I'm getting confused by all the angles here. What are the objections?

1) Contraceptive coverage being required in any employer's health plan, with co-payment.

2) Contraceptive coverage being required in any employer's health plan without co-payment.

3) Contraceptive coverage being required in a religious employer's health plan, with co-payment.

4) Contraceptive coverage being required in a religious employer's health plan without co-payment.

Are any of these acceptable? Are they all unacceptable? I just want to know exactly what we're discussing.

 

[MachZer0]

I'm getting confused by all the angles here. What are the objections?

1) Contraceptive coverage being required in any employer's health plan, with co-payment.

2) Contraceptive coverage being required in any employer's health plan without co-payment.

3) Contraceptive coverage being required in a religious employer's health plan, with co-payment.

4) Contraceptive coverage being required in a religious employer's health plan without co-payment.

Are any of these acceptable? Are they all unacceptable? I just want to know exactly what we're discussing.

None of those deal with the actual issue, which is religious freedom

 

[jayem]

None of those deal with the actual issue, which is religious freedom

I'll rephrase my question. Which of those situations would violate religious freedom?

 

[MachZer0]

I'll rephrase my question. Which of those situations would violate religious freedom?

All of them in some cases

 

[jayem]

All of them in some cases

Perhaps. If you take a very expansive view of religious freedom. But is religious freedom absolute?

 

[MachZer0]

Perhaps. If you take a very expansive view of religious freedom.

It doesn't have to be very expansive as evidenced by the current debate.

But is religious freedom absolute?

According to my liberal friends, there are absolutely no absolutes