Remedy for Hobby Lobby decision?

[Ravenman]

@HumbleThinker

In general, the only thing that can overturn a Supreme Court ruling is another Supreme Court ruling, legislation that is not later deemed unconstitutional, or a constitutional amendment. To the best of my knowledge, this is it.

As has been stated dozens of times in this thread, the Supreme Court decided the Hobby Lobby case on the basis of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, not the Consitution. Congress can change the law, but they aren’t likely to in the foreseeable future.

[ITR_champion]

@rsa

Your cite is mostly referring to rates of contraceptive use ever.

How about this:

Of women at risk of an unintended pregnancy, 11% report not
currently using a method of contraception.

It does not say that any of those women are not using contraception because of price. In fact, when women are surveyed on reasons for not using contraception, they offer many reasons, but price doesn’t even register. (See Table E here.) You wouldn’t know it from listening to Democrats, but there are plenty of reasons for not using birth control that don’t involve price: side effects, laziness, the fact that condoms reduce the pleasure of sex for many.

Having access to birth control is not a synonym for using birth control. Obviously everyone in the country has access to birth control, and has for many years before Obamacare was passed. Obviously, when the Democrats shriek about women being denied access to birth control, they’re talking nonsense.

@usedtobe

Does anyone seriously doubt that contraception is cheaper to a health provider than a pregnancy?

Not that I know of.

[ITR_champion]

@Hiker

Ok - I follow. Not asking religious employers to pay for insurance that covers contraception will not reduce the use of contraception. However, if that is the universal perception, then why allow those religious employers to back out?

It helps preserve the USA’s centuries-old tradition of freedom of religion, conscience, and keeping government’s nose out of private decisions.

[running_coach]

@ITR_champion

It helps preserve the USA’s centuries-old tradition of freedom of religion, conscience, and keeping government’s nose out of private decisions.

Like abortion?

[Dr.Conrad_Shadowdale]

The only way to provide complete access to birth control is to make it available over the counter and available like vitamins, aspirin or bandages. Note, in general, those OTC remedies are not paid for by insurance nor is anyone “denied” access to them. Women in America have access to birth control and the Hobby Lobby decision had nothing to do with access.

[BigT]

@Dr.Conrad_Shadowdale

The only way to provide complete access to birth control is to make it available over the counter and available like vitamins, aspirin or bandages. Note, in general, those OTC remedies are not paid for by insurance nor is anyone “denied” access to them. Women in America have access to birth control and the Hobby Lobby decision had nothing to do with access.

Putting something over the counter and not allowing it to be covered by insurance generally restricts access rather than making it better. I know–my sister now has to get her allergy medication over the counter, can’t afford it, and thus has to go without a lot.

The whole over-the-counter option is an attempt to restrict access.

[ITR_champion]

@BigT

Putting something over the counter and not allowing it to be covered by insurance generally restricts access rather than making it better. I know–my sister now has to get her allergy medication over the counter, can’t afford it, and thus has to go without a lot.

The whole over-the-counter option is an attempt to restrict access.

Is there any law that says that health insurance companies cannot offer coverage of over-the-counter medications? And if so, couldn’t the government just, oh, I don’t know, … repeal that law?

Let me make a few points that rarely get mentioned in all the ranting and raving about access to birth control. Birth control is given away free in many places. Planned Parenthood offers the pill and other methods for free. If, for some reason, a woman is unwilling to get it for free, it costs less than $10 per month at Walmart or Target. The line from the Democrats seems to be that birth control is so freaking important that it’s a civil right and the key to women’s health and happiness and blah, blah, blah. At the same time, it’s apparently so unimportant that women for some reason can’t spend pocket change to get it.

I’ve already offered survey results showing that women were having no trouble affording birth control, even before the ACA. I asked whether anyone could find a single woman who’s unable to afford birth control; nobody could. Under the ACA, a woman (or man) can end up paying thousands for life-saving cancer treatments or numerous other things, but for some reason the Dems insist that birth control, which is both much cheaper and less important, must not cost anyone a penny. Why? It couldn’t possibly be because they enjoy forcing religious conservatives to pay for it.

[UltraVires]

@rsa

The Obama administration has remedied the problem.

[/INDENT]

How is this a solution? Putting aside the debate for a minute, we end up with this:

1. Hobby Lobby is not required to provide contraception coverage because of its religious beliefs.

2. They tell their provider they do not wish to cover contraception.

3. Their provider covers it anyways.
   This makes a mockery of the decision. The fiction that Hobby Lobby is not now covering it but the insurance company is now covering it is absurd. That was exactly what was happening before. The employees of Hobby Lobby are only entitled to the “new” contraception coverage because of Hobby Lobby’s premiums.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I’m okay with Hobby Lobby spending a few more million in legal fees to take this back to SCOTUS.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@UltraVires

The employees of Hobby Lobby are only entitled to the “new” contraception coverage because of Hobby Lobby’s premiums.

But the premium would not go down if Hobby Lobby’s insurer was not required to provide BC coverage.

[Balthisar]

@BigT

Putting something over the counter and not allowing it to be covered by insurance generally restricts access rather than making it better. I know–my sister now has to get her allergy medication over the counter, can’t afford it, and thus has to go without a lot.

The whole over-the-counter option is an attempt to restrict access.

I personally like the freedom of over-the-counter. For me and millions like me, forcing us to go to the doctor for a prescription for a drug that we know how to use safely and correctly is “restricted access.” In fact, restricting access is the entire point of having a prescription requirement.

My insurance will pay for anything that is prescribed. I learned this by accident when I started having to get prescriptions for over-the-counter antacids so that I could use my flexible savings account to pay for it. Those changes to the FSA rules further restricted the availability of antacid to me because there was no way to buy them in a tax advantaged way without being forced to get a prescription.

[bengangmo]

@Balthisar

I personally like the freedom of over-the-counter. For me and millions like me, forcing us to go to the doctor for a prescription for a drug that we know how to use safely and correctly is “restricted access.” In fact, restricting access is the entire point of having a prescription requirement.

My insurance will pay for anything that is prescribed. I learned this by accident when I started having to get prescriptions for over-the-counter antacids so that I could use my flexible savings account to pay for it. Those changes to the FSA rules further restricted the availability of antacid to me because there was no way to buy them in a tax advantaged way without being forced to get a prescription.

Serious question - you say “for a drug that we know how to use safely and correctly” how do you know that you are using it safely and correctly? And that it’s the best option? You personally may be well informed, by what about the generic you? Aren’t there a multitude of different types of pills from different manufacturers on the market?

Which is the right one?

And then what about other birth control measures? Is “the pill” necessarily the best alternative? What sub dermal implants? IUD? Dams?

Wouldn’t there be better outcomes in general if “birth control pill” was part of a comprehensive discussion with a doctor?

Now before you jump all over me - I’m NOT saying that “the pill” shouldn’t be available over the counter for those that want it - but rather politely suggesting that it would be good to see birth control as part of medical insurance and a more detailed consultative approach (i.e - I agree with the idea that birth control must be part of medical insurance and that it is none of an employers business)

[BigT]

@Balthisar

forcing us to go to the doctor for a prescription for a drug that we know how to use safely and correctly

You don’t, because it is a drug that can cause problems and needs a minimal checkup. Which is why the solution is to have that available at the drug store, too, like in Oregon.

[ITR_champion]

@bengangmo

Serious question - you say “for a drug that we know how to use safely and correctly” how do you know that you are using it safely and correctly? And that it’s the best option? You personally may be well informed, by what about the generic you? Aren’t there a multitude of different types of pills from different manufacturers on the market?

Which is the right one?

And then what about other birth control measures? Is “the pill” necessarily the best alternative? What sub dermal implants? IUD? Dams?

Wouldn’t there be better outcomes in general if “birth control pill” was part of a comprehensive discussion with a doctor?

Numerous other countries make the pill available over the counter without any adverse consequences. I haven’t heard of any epidemic of French or German women dropping like flies from improperly used birth control, and I’m sure American women are smart enough to handle it.

Planned Parenthood and Congressional Democrats apparently don’t think so.

[bengangmo]

@ITR_champion

Numerous other countries make the pill available over the counter without any adverse consequences. I haven’t heard of any epidemic of French or German women dropping like flies from improperly used birth control, and I’m sure American women are smart enough to handle it.

Planned Parenthood and Congressional Democrats apparently don’t think so.

That’s not exactly what I’m suggesting -

What I am saying is that I think before starting on birth control pills (and other methods), and then at regular intervals (2 years?) it may well be advisable that it comes as part of a proper consultation to make sure that this is the best method for overall health?

I would think that the proper solution is more and easier access to the prescription in the first place?

As **BigT **notes, it can cause problems - and on top of that, selecting the “best” or most suitable does require some knowledge doesn’t it?

Or maybe at least a discussion with someone trained in the side-effects that can have a discussion on what is most suitable?

Please note - I am on the side of MORE birth control, not less - but at the same time it must be healthy right?

[Balthisar]

@BigT

You don’t, because it is a drug that can cause problems and needs a minimal checkup. Which is why the solution is to have that available at the drug store, too, like in Oregon.

Which drug? And what will a cursory, five minute checkup tell the doctor that I don’t already know about myself? If I want to buy a gallon of PEG for my own private use, why do I lose the freedom to make that decision myself? I know when or when I don’t want to use codeine. I want 2.5% selenium sulfide lotion; why can I only buy 1% OTC? I have to go to a doctor for my entire life although I know how to use it safely?

[bengangmo]

@Balthisar

Which drug? And what will a cursory, five minute checkup tell the doctor that I don’t already know about myself? If I want to buy a gallon of PEG for my own private use, why do I lose the freedom to make that decision myself? I know when or when I don’t want to use codeine. I want 2.5% selenium sulfide lotion; why can I only buy 1% OTC? I have to go to a doctor for my entire life although I know how to use it safely?

Is this in some way inaccurate?

Cardiovascular and Central Nervous Systems
For some women, birth control pills and patches can increase blood pressure.

Those extra hormones can also make it a little more likely that you’ll form a blood clot. That risk is substantially higher if you’re a smoker or are over age 35. The risk of blood clots is also greater if you have high blood pressure, preexisting heart disease, or diabetes.

These side effects are uncommon in most women but are potentially very serious. That’s why hormonal birth control methods require a prescription and routine monitoring. There’s an increased risk of heart attack and stroke, particularly in smokers and women over age 35. Seek medical attention if you feel chest pain, cough up blood, or feel faint. Severe headache, difficulty speaking, or weakness/numbness in a limb could be signs of stroke.

Estrogen may aggravate migraines, if you already suffer from them. Some women experience mood changes and depression when taking these contraceptives.

• See more at: The Effects of Hormonal Birth Control on Your Body

It’s not a topic I know much about, I simply always understood that, like almost all hormones, it is good to get the advice of a doctor before starting a course of treatment,

If it’s for long term birth control I would have thought that it would also be beneficial to have a comprehensive consultation about what works best.

This should not be taken to mean a visit every month is needed.
Would something like a refill of a prescription if / when a PAP Smear or Mammogram is scheduled be an appropriate schedule, just to check that everything is running smoothly and as expected?

[UltraVires]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

But the premium would not go down if Hobby Lobby’s insurer was not required to provide BC coverage.

It’s not the financial gain or loss that is at issue. Bottom line is that the insurance company is still providing contraception coverage to Hobby Lobby employees solely because Hobby Lobby pays premiums.

It cannot be seriously argued that Hobby Lobby is not still paying for contraception coverage.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Be that as it may, this is the exact alternative the Hobby Lobby majority pointed to, and found to be sufficient to accommodate Hobby Lobby’s complaints:

HHS itself has demonstrated that it has at its disposal an approach that is less restrictive than requiring employers to fund contraceptive methods that violate their religious beliefs. As we explained above, HHS has already established an accommodation for nonprofit organizations with religious objections. See supra, at 9–10, and nn. 8–9. Under that accommodation, the organization can selfcertify that it opposes providing coverage for particular contraceptive services. See 45 CFR §§147.131(b)(4), (c)(1);26 CFR §§54.9815–2713A(a)(4), (b). If the organization makes such a certification, the organization’s insurance issuer or third-party administrator must “[e]xpressly exclude contraceptive coverage from the group health insurance coverage provided in connection with the group health plan” and “[p]rovide separate payments for any contraceptive services required to be covered” without imposing “any cost-sharing requirements . . . on the eligible organization, the group health plan, or plan participants or beneficiaries.” 45 CFR §147.131(c)(2); 26 CFR §54.9815–2713A(c)(2).

We do not decide today whether an approach of this type complies with RFRA for purposes of all religious claims. At a minimum, however, it does not impinge on the plaintiffs’ religious belief that providing insurance coverage for the contraceptives at issue here violates their religion, and it serves HHS’s stated interests equally well.