It’s to be provided at no cost. So the no cost portion could be said to be from you.
The angry-children that run the Catholic Church are being such assholes because they want to control women. They even want to allow generic business owners to deny birth control coverage for women. It’s just them being evil.
The insurance company is what’s providing the birth control coverage, not the church. That’s a fact and everyone crying about this are either ignorant or pretending to be upset to further some goal. I assume that goal is to increase the number of women who are afraid to have sex.
Sure, providing you reduce the Catholics’ payments by the same amount overall. But that sort of defeats the purpose of the Obamacare stipulation that hormonal birth control must be provided by health insurance.
Presumably they are reducing the cost by free. Since it is to cost the end user free. That is to say, it is required to absorbed by the insurance company in any case.
And insurance companies don’t mind this, because it saves them money.
We haven’t, as a society, decided that paying for crack is an acceptable use of societal resources. We have decided that defense spending, bridges, and health care are expenses for which we can spread/share the costs.
In a previous thread, we already established that you can buy generic birth control pills at Target or Wal-mart for $9 a month. From what I seen the best approach to lowering the cost of the BC pills is to make at less some types of birth control pills available as over the counter medication. I found out that this already done in Mexico and Spain.
I read one article that we should at least make the progestin-only mini-pill available for OTC BC. There seems to be less side effects.
When you work it out on a monthly basis, then it looks like an implant like Implanon is the cheapest. It might be nice if someone worked out a monthly plan to pay for it. Maybe the Gates foundation could come with a public domain version you could buy for $30 dollars?
You can. Maybe. If that particular formulation works for you.
Me, I like to work with my doctor to find the right drug, and then I expect my insurance company to cover it, since that’s what I pay* them for. I’m crazy like that.
*And again, let’s be very clear about this… I PAY THEM. My employer covers some of it as part of my compensation, and then I cover the rest out of pocket.
But we haven’t decided, as a society, that your right to have me share the costs of your hormonal birth control trumps my freedom of conscience. That’s what the thread is about.
ISTM that if the government is going to order me to do something, if at all possible there ought to be some kind of “conscientious objector” status that can be applied for good-faith objections. Especially when the government is attempting to expand its power, as is nearly unavoidable as it becomes even more involved in providing health care and mandating how it is delivered and paid for.
Would this be an acceptable solution for everyone? Making hormonal BC OTC? Obviously cost is not an issue. If they are OTC, then availability will not be an issue.
I saw no reason to respond to this argument because it’s already been shot down by others quite thoroughly in the other threads dealing with the topic of birth control. Obama initially declared that religious employers would be forced to buy insurance plans that included coverage of all forms of birth control with no copay, then “compromised” by saying that the insurance companies would pay for birth control. But if the employer purchases the insurance and then the insurance company provides the cost of birth control, the employer is obviously the one paying for the birth control; the insurance company is just a middle man and will obviously pass along any price increase to the employer.
Moreover, you seem to assume that religious institutions and insurers are necessarily distinct. They are not. Some religious bodies have created their own insurance companies to protect their employees, and those insurance companies are functionally part of the religious body. So if insurance companies have their decision-making freedom stripped away on this issue, then some religious institutions have had their freedom-making decision stripped away.
atholic bishops are not trying to do any such thing. They are trying to preserve the freedom of their own church, not to prevent anyone else from making a free decision. Refusing to pay for someone else’s decision to make a purchase is not denying anyone the freedom to make the purchase, and it won’t be no matter how often you say it is.
Birth control should be available via insurance. It prevents a huge healthcare expense (pregnancy). It is also used to treat some non-pregnancy medial conditions.
The Catholics are throwing a tantrum because they hate the idea of women having sex without the fear of pregnancy. This is in no way forcing them to provide coverage. The coverage is being provided by the insurance companies.
Capitulating to people who are attempting to codify their religious beliefs into law is wrong. Catholics are the ones being evil here.
I agree that trying paint these people as paragons of virtue is ridiculous, but I am just thinking of a practical solution. Why would these available by prescription only? What purpose does that serve?
You are incorrect. It hasn’t. Shoot it down if you can.
You are wrong. The coverage is required to be at zero cost. So it is being absorbed by the insurance company. This is good for them because it saves them money. A birth can easily be over ten grand. The insurance company saves money by providing birth control.
If a religious company wants to work in the secular world it is required to obey laws. Catholics are required to obey minimum wage laws despite the fact that they found slavery as acceptable. If a Catholic company wants to insure people it should be required to obey the standard laws.
And this doesn’t apply to actual churches. Just secular companies that Churches own. If a church runs a hospital, it has put a foot in the temporal realm and should be run by normal laws.
Now, I haven’t heard what the particular idea to deal with self-insuring companies was to be. So if you know, I’d appreciate a link. Preferably to a reputable source.
They aren’t paying for anything. They are paying zero.
The insurance company is paying. I know you have no intention of accepting this fact, but that’s your choice.
28 states have mandated this for years. And the debate isn’t about birth control for many of us, it’s about health care for women. I’m one of many women who spent years on birth control during periods of abstinence for non birth control reasons.
That is meaningless. When a church or any other employer purchases health insurance for an employee, the employer pays a certain amount for the entire insurance package; coverage for birth control is not itemized separately. Insurance companies could simply set their rates higher. Unless President Obama is planning to make it illegal for insurance companies to charge any rate but what they did charge prior to the ruling going into effect, there’s no way to prevent the insurance companies from responding to the birth control order by increasing their rates.
(A) Cite please? (B) If your claim is true, then why does President Obama need to force the insurance companies to provide all forms of birth control with no copay? Why weren’t they already doing so based on the profit motive?
First of all, when you say Catholics “found slavery acceptable” is incorrect. The Catholic Church has always been opposed to slavery. Secondly, the Constitution says that the federal government can’t make any law that abridges the free expression of religious belief. Obama’s new law does that, and is thus unconstitutional, and as others have pointed out there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court will strike it down. (Even if the Supreme Court doesn’t throw the entirety of the insurance mandate out, which may happen.)
Cite, please? Where exactly in the text of what Obama has provided does it say that churches (which employ over fifty) are exempt from the law? Can you quote the part?
I suspect because they’re afraid of pissing off the crazy religious people in this country.
That is not true. Slavery existed when the Catholic church had the right to burn people in public. The idea that they wanted to stop it is silly. Catholic Church and slavery - Wikipedia
It does not do that. You are incorrect. As I said, you are simply misinformed about this issue. I, for one, would appreciate it if you stopped spreading your misinformation.
The Church is required to do nothing. Private businesses they own, if they want to provide health care insurance, don’t provide birth control. It is provided at no cost by the Insurance Company.
You are speculating based on a fantasy view of the issue that is not true.
I have no idea why I should require other people to subsidize my erections or why I should subsidize other people erections. I haven’t done any studies on whether Viagra is safe enough for OTC use. I don’t think Viagra should be covered under medical insurance at all.
Obviously no solution is going to be acceptable to everybody. All you can do is come up with a solution that pisses off the least number of people.
If the insurance company reduced your payment by, say, $3 with the condition that you take their special, personal, $3 birth control plan, it wouldn’t be a problem.
Really? That’s the part you find useful to fight?
Replace crack for porn magazines, abortions, motels to have sex with my same-sex lover, cigarrettes, alcohol, bread.
The difference between paying directly and being only indirectly involved are very clear.
Also, what happened to “keep the government out of the bedroom”?
Hence when the amount they spend on birth control, when it’s counted as “care”, increases, the amount they can charge also increases.
The link is to a prediction that government programs promoting birth control will save taxpayer money. Anyone can predict any facts for the future; that doesn’t prove that those same facts were true for situations where insurance companies gave away birth control for no copay.
It’s silly to believe that the Catholic Church wanted to stop slavery? Here are some links to Papal Encyclicals and other official documents about slavery:
Doesn’t look silly to me.
I’ve addressed this topic in the other thread on the birth control issue, so I won’t repeat myself here.
Hospitals and colleges that churches own are obviously neither secular nor businesses. They re religious non-profits.
