Recently, the DC city council passed a bill requiring all insurance companies to pay for birth control. Makes sense to me, and it’s about time…previously, companies would pay for pregnancy, Viagra, or even an abortion, but not birth control pills. Seems simple, yes?
No.
Because DC isn’t a state, all council resolutions have to pass Congress to become law. And based on recent protests by the Catholic archdiocese, they are threatening to notg pass the bill into law unless Catholic employers are exempt from the requirement. WTF? Hello, I realize this is the Catholic stance, that birth control is wrong. But using it to not obey a law and force their morals on someone else???
What’s new.
[rant]
Catholics have been quietly narrowing the reproductive choices all over this great land. A Catholic hospital agrees to merge with another hospital and it writes into the contract that the new hospital won’t perform sterilizations and other procedures that the Catholics don’t like. Since the Catholics care more about control than money they make the deals sweet enough that the other hospital agrees. Women can still go to clinics, but then the clinics are not as safe as hospitals, not always as convenient, and they are surrounded by idiots yelling baby killer that are nasty to you even if you are just trying to get pills or a tubal ligation.
[/rant]
Birth control should be covered by insurance. It makes sense. To not cover it just because a vocal minority says no it a disservice to everyone.
I thought that freedom of religion had been fairly firmly established in the United States.
Would this mean that employers and employees would be required to state their religion, which if I am not mistaken, they are currently constitutionally protected from having to do? Would Catholic employers have to pay for it for non-Catholic employees? Would Catholic employees who do believe in the use of birth control have to go out of their way to find a non-Catholic employer? Are they next going to decide that Catholic employers can choose not to hire potential employees whose sexual preferences go against their own religious beliefs?
First, they can’t be using a stance to “not obey a law” when they are in fact trying to keep a law from being passed.
Second, they’re not trying to force their morals on anyone, they’re simply saying that they don’t want to be forced to pay for a service that they view as a sin. They aren’t telling any of their employees (or anyone else) that they can’t use birth control, simply that they won’t provide health insurance that covers that.
(As a side note, a while back Radio Shack passed a rule saying that all employees had to be clean shaven. Some bearded managers sued and lost. Radio Shack was not imposing on or forcing anyone to do anything. Simply laying down conditions, you don’t get the privilege of working here and getting a paycheck from us unless you agree to be clean shaven.)
Of course as a libertarian I don’t see why ANY government should be telling insurance companies that they have to cover anything that they don’t conractually agree to cover.
And to seem paridoxical, assuming the law were to be passed (as is, or modified) I think that it should be passed as is, not exempting catholics.
So the health insurance would pay for the pregnancy, the Viagra for the guy, but not a birth control pill? Just because the OWNER was Catholic? I’m sorry, that is forcing their religion on someone. That’s not paying for a needed item (what if the woman needed it for estrogen? Or acne?) bcause of a religious belief.
And KimKatt - I already had to put down what religion I was at my new OB/GYN’s office recently. First time EVER. Was kind of a shock…what, they’re going to withhold info from me because I (at the time) was Catholic? And I’m curious on the whole “Do they have to pay for non-Catholics?” thing myself.
Of course, this would be a NON ISSUE if DC could pass its own &^%@#&^(@&#^%&(% LAWS! (Sorry, different rant.)
It seems part of the health insurance trap that most of us are in. Don’t get me wrong, employer-paid health insurance is a HUGE benefit, but it’s one more way that our employment controls and defines us. If we work for a company that happens to be owned by Catholics who disagree with birth control, they get to say whether we can get contraceptives through our insurance plans. To have the pill covered vs. not covered is $60/year vs $360/year for me. If you start a new job and your employer’s plan doesn’t pay for preexisting conditions and whoops, damn, you have cancer or some other pre-existing condition, it doesn’t get paid for.
This is not a “managed care” rant - I think HMOs and other solutions allow people to receive a very high level of care and encourage them to seek treatments early and often - but I’m wondering if people wouldn’t be better off buying some kind of group insurance for themselves that they have throughout their lives, rather than subjecting themselves to the religious or cost-whims of employers.
I really hope the D.C. law passes (I live here, and used to attend Georgetown, where students were not allowed to receive contraceptive prescriptions or counseling EVER).
On a somewhat related note, the organization Caltholics for a Free Choice (www.cath4choice.org), a dissenting group for Catholics who oppose the Church’s stance against abortion and contraception, is pushing to remove the current influence the Vatican has in the United Nations.
The U.S. House of Representatives just voted (with something like a 464-to-1 majority) to recommend that the U.N. keep the Vatican in its current position of influence there, and not follow the advice of Catholics for a Free Choice.
This may not matter to anyone except me, but the July 10 and 13 Washington Post articles make it clear that what is meant by Catholic employers is not individual employers who happen to be Catholic, but Catholic institutions,( or for that matter, institutions operated by any religion)such as schools, hospitals etc. ,run by the Catholic church itself. Someone did propose exempting private employers, but that amendment was withdrawn.
Why the hell should an insurance company be forced to pay for birth control?
Health care insurance is intended to pay for emergencies, not things that can be obtained in a non time sensitive manner.
Magdalene, you ARE paying for your contraceptives indirectly. That insurance company will boost either your rates, everyone’s rates, or those likely to use contraceptives rates. Any way, you will pay for it. What is more, this will be even more expensive than they would have otherwise been. With every claim that you make, the health insurance company has to verify and process that claim, etc. raising the cost. If you still want to pay through your insurance company for contraceptives, I have no problem with you doing so, just do not force this on every other insurance company and everyone else.
I disagree with threemae’s statement that health care insurance is only for emergencies. It is for general health care. That’s why it’s not called “emergency care”.
Haven’t you ever heard of preventive medicine? Routine check ups, etc? Take dental insurance. You’re supposed to get a check-up twice a year to prevent any major disasters that are ultimately much more costly. Same with health insurance. I get my “well-woman” exam once a year to make sure all is well. This includes a gyno exam, blood work, and other expensive tests that I sure as heck don’t want to pay for on my own. What about mammograms? Once I turn 40 you can bet I’ll be getting my annual mammogram. I’m certainly not going to wait until I have breast cancer and then use my “emergency” health care.
As far as the insurance company not paying for birth control–I am a Catholic who has been on the pill since I was 15, for medical reasons. My mother was concerned about the religous impact of this, but on speaking with our local clergy, was assured that as long as I wasn’t using birth control to control birth, no problem. Not a sin. Said clergy didn’t fail to mention that if I did actually have sex, it would then be a sin, wether I was married or not.
So would said insurance companies agree to pay for it if it was NOT for birth control but other medical reasons? I do agree with doreen, that it implies Catholic institutions as employers. So, what if a nun needed birth control for a medical reason? Would they tell her to just suffer?
That’s great if you want to pay for all of these medical procedures through your medical company, go ahead. However, there is no reason to force others to pay more for health careif they do not wish to have “full service” medical care that includes preventative medicine. I have no objection to your health care plan, but it is unfair to force others into a similar health contract that you have through legislation.
At this juncture, it seems appropos to make a distinction between a health plan and health insurance.
Health insurance is designed to pay only for unexpected medical expenses, such as broken bones and ruptured spleens.
A health plan is designed to pay for all the ordinary, reasonable medical expenses a normal person would have, even if some or all of those expenses can be anticipated ahead of time.
Things like birth control belong in a health plan. They do not belong in health insurance.
I don’t think this argument holds up. If I worked for and have a health plan with a Jehovah’s Witness organization, should they be exempt from paying for a life-saving blood transfusion because they consider it a sin?
Tracer:
Most companies call it a “health insurance plan”. Dunno what that does for your distinctions.
And I have to strongly disagree with those who say that only emergency care should be covered. I should wait til my minor ailment becomes a major health risk before invoking health insurance? I think not.
I’ve also gotta disagree on the “only cover emergency care.” This actually costs MORE – would you rather have your insurance plan cover my emergency stay in the hospital because I can’t breathe from a huge asthma flare or bronchitis, which would cost god KNOWS how much, instead of paying for my asthma inhaler? Or a preventive checkup? Doesn’t make sense to me.
You’d rather pay MORE overall, threemae? Or is there something I’m missing?
I don’t doubt any of it.
Friends of mine (a couple), were devout catholics. They had two kids and didn’t want anymore. They were using the “rhythm method” and praying to not have any more children.
Anyway, the priest got wind of the praying part and told them to stop. It’s a sin, appearently, to pray for infertility.
Go figure.
Cracked me up, but they didn’t think it was so funny.
Peace,
mangeorge
I left something out before. This law would only require plans that cover prescription drugs to cover birth control pills. If the plan doesn’t cover prescriptions at all that would still be okay. I’ve had prescription drug coverages that specifically excluded birth control pills that were prescribed for birth control, and did not exclude any other drug ( including Accutane,which is probably prescribed for cosmetic reasons at least as often as the pill is prescribed for birth control).
Threemae - I’m not sure what you mean by “emergency”. I never heard of health insurance that only covers emergencies. Are you referring to the type of insurance that covers only illness and injury,whether it’s an emergency or not, or something else?
My arguement was not specifically that the catholic church should not pay, or be forced to pay for birth control (or any other medical procedure) but rather that by changing the law they would not be forcing their beliefs on others.
As for the Jehovah’s Witness situation it’s really quite simple. The employer pays the insurance company to provide contractually specified coverage to it’s employees, and enters into a contract with it’s employees ensuring that the coverage is provided. If the Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to enter into a contract with the insurance company that would provide coverage of blood transfusions that’s their buisness. It’s each individual employees choice to work for that employer and contractually agree to the coverage provided.
No government has any buisness telling any insurance company what coverage it must provide (even conditionally, ie you must cover birth control if you cover other prescriptions) This really is a contract law matter.
Employers providing health insurance is a form of payment to the employees, if you do not like the specifics of the payment that an employer is willing to give you then don’t work there! If you worked for an Amish person I’m pretty sure that you would never be paid by direct deposit, this is not a matter of the Amish employer trying to force his moral code upon you by refusing to direct deposit. I’ll say it again it’s a matter of contract, and the government has no buisness telling you that you can’t enter into an employment contract that provides prescription coverage but not for birth control pills.
Falcon; I feel that a health insurance plan should provide coverage for birth, and NOT viagra. I’m kind of torn on the birth control coverage, health insurance was concieved (no pun intended) to cover illness and injuries that affect the quality of life. It seems to me that pregnancy is not an illness or an injury so providing preventive coverage is a little absurd. Of course their are important medical issues related strongly to pregnacy and birth. I guess I’m a cheap bastard, I don’t want to belong to any plan that covers viagra, birth control pills, rogain, or anything else that seems nonessential to me.
But all of this is irrelevent. It dosn’t matter what I think a health plan should cover, the government shouldn’t get involved. Your employer is paying for a service, and should be able to decide exactly what services it wants to pay for. If you don’t like it, work for someone else! Yes, it doesn’t seem “fair” but the government is not here to make sure our world is “fair”.
Another interesting point is that on average a person would save money by never buying any insurance ever, but it only takes one good disaster for the uninsured person to end up losing money over all.
To reiterate, this is a matter of contract law. The government is trying to step in and tell employers that they are not allowed to enter into a contract with insurance companies that would provide prescription coverage for it’s employees but not birth control pill coverage. That’s wrong.
Hold up. So under your logic, a company owned by say…a Mormon could force its employees to stop drinking, smoking, drinking caffiene…yes? And if you didn’t like it, leave? I’m sorry, I have a bloody hard enough time finding a job as it IS, without worrying that my employer is Catholic, or Jewish, or Jehovah’s Witness.
Furthermore, that is forcing the morals of one person (the owner of the firm) on a group. And forcing them based on RELIGIOUS grounds. Doesn’t this violate church and state? Or the freedom of religion, which is also seen as the freedom FROM religion in some areas?
And I guess I see the insurance angle a little differently, since I HAVE to have insurance to survive. I couldn’t afford things without it. (I’m sure it drives my company up the wall…I do NOT meet the average profile for 24 year olds healthwise.) For me, a pregnancy is an illness becuase of other chronic conditions I have. Therefore, in MY case, it is medically necessary to prevent it. Not saying it’s true for all cases, just pointing out that brith control pills can be necessary at times. Not just convenient. (They’re also used for other things as well, so IMO they should just be covered as a regular prescription.)