This is a new law designed to improve the country. The reason it is being enacted is that currently many women on the margins are having trouble affording birth control. And birth control covered by insurance will improve society.
Some religious people are too blinded by a vague sense of attack (and their backwards beliefs about sex and reproduction) to understand that. So they are against this even though this isn’t about the freedom to practice those beliefs.
It is factual that the RCC isn’t being forced to buy birth control. A fact you have ignored time and again.
This is precisely the reason the Roman Catholic Church maintains that post-menopausal women and infertile couples are allowed to have sex, that God could grant them a miracle. However, he statistically will grant fewer miracles to less fertile couples than to very fertile couples.
So though you said “The Republicans are trying to allow employers to force their employees to live by religious rules”, it wasn’t actually true and there’s no employer anywhere in the country who’s forcing their employees to do anything, at least not according to the definition of the word “force” found in the dictionary.
As for notion that “many women” are not able to afford birth control, all the cites I’ve seen in all the threads on the topic contradict that. But if you choose to have beliefs that are separate from reality, it’s not my business. Good day.
(No doubt you’ll respond to this with your usual post declaring that you’ve proved me wrong and won a mighty victory. Have fun.)
The RCC and the Republicans in the Blunt amendment are trying to allow religious employers to decide what their employee’s health care covers. Even if the employee doesn’t agree with the religious beliefs of their employers. That’s forcing.
You should try to think this through before you comment.
Do you not believe incentives work? I’m the one trying to push facts through your ideology forcefield here. You have ignored time and again the fact that this isn’t forcing the RCC (or anyone) to pay for birth control.
Declaring victory when you’ve embarrassingly pratfalled isn’t as charming as you think it is.
I think it’s stretching the purpose of health care to include contraception. In my opinion, health care should be about fixing problems or coverage for procedures to avoid future problems. I don’t consider contraception to be a defect. If the pill were available in the pharmacy next to the condoms, it would not even be part of the insurance discussion. But since you have to go to the doctor to get it, suddenly it must be covered by insurance. If it is a necessary medication to fix some health care defect, then it should be covered like all other medications. But when it is just a convenient form of birth control, it seems that is something which should be paid out-of-pocket.
There’s plenty of other things you go to the doctor for that aren’t normally covered by insurance such as baldness, lasik, and cosmetic surgery. Why is it imperative that contraception be covered but not every other procedure requiring a doctor visit?
That said, it makes financial sense for insurance companies to provide contraception. Having and raising a baby is a huge cost to insurance. I would think insurance companies would be eager to add contraception and sterilization procedures to their policies without passing on any of the added cost.
If any of you have priced insurance, you know that the insurance companies price their plans higher the more benefits that are offered. A basic medical plan might cost $X, a plan which also includes pregnancy coverage is $X+Y, a plan which also includes bariatric surgery is $X+Y+Z. Adding coverage isn’t free. You can’t just say all insurance should cover some procedure and not expect the cost to be passed on.
Rush is an asshole, but I think it is a valid question to ask why is an elective medication so special that it should be mandated into insurance policy. And why just female contraception? What about men who can’t afford a form of birth control? Why isn’t there insurance coverage for male contraception?
There are many ways to avoid a pregnancy if you don’t want one, many of which are less expensive than the pill. So why is the pill being made into mandated coverage? If contraception is an important issue, why isn’t all forms of contraception covered under insurance like the pill, female condoms, and male condoms?
I don’t agree with your latter statement. There are plenty of health issues facing men that aren’t covered by insurance. Many men have vision problems, yet Lasik is rarely covered. Many men go bald, yet medication for that is not covered. Propecia is around $700/year, yet it is rarely part of insurance coverage.
Determining whether or not or when to become pregnant is a medical decision. Pregnancy is a medical condition. Therefore, avoiding, delaying, or permanently preventing pregnancy is a “procedure to avoid future problems”.
Or did you think women gestate their fetuses in a box or get them by mail order?
So, apparently the RCC has decided just having a leader who is personally pro-choice and pro-SSM means you can’t get diocesan money for a homeless shelter:
^ That’s nothing new, “Call to Action” members have been excommunicated, while Pope Benedict XVI has lifted the excommunication of Society of St. Pius X bishops.
For clarification, that means that a society that advocates debate (not change, just debate) over issues like contraception, the ordination of women and gay marriage is unacceptable, while one that celebrates things like the Concordat is fine.
If you pay attention to the Blunt amendment, it’s pretty obvious. The Republicans object to all of Obama’s healthcare plan. Unfortunately, the people in the country largely think it was a good idea. When Obama did this birth control thing, they saw an angle that they might be able to attack healthcare on, and so they did. They tried to get everyone all upset, and then tried to pass the Blunt ammendment which would allow insurers to opt out of not only birth control, but anything they objected to for conscience reasons. Seeing as there is no way to prove what’s on someone’s conscience, you instantly have a way around the mandate. They pretend to cover everyone, but then conveniently object to things that cost money.
I’m still not sure if they made a mistake with thinking that birth control was a big deal, or if they knew it wouldn’t be, but saw a foothold to push the old “religious people are being persecuted” line of attack.
BTW, my conscience does object to war. By the logic used here, I am compelled to pay for war. If you can object to birth control, then I can stop paying the military. Face it: tax money is not your money and you don’t directly control it.
I don’t consider pregnancy to be an illness like a broken bone or cancer. I consider birth control to be a discretionary medical expense. I would consider baldness cures the same way. There are many ways to treat those conditions. And you don’t have to treat those conditions. You can usually live with them without ill effect.
If there is some medical reason for you not to get pregnant, the pills should be covered. Perhaps you have some health condition which would put your life at risk if you got pregnant. In that case the pills would be covered. But if it’s just a matter of wanting the most convenient form of birth control, I don’t see that as something that should be covered.
Birth control pills are not the only way. The diaphragm is also effective and it’s usually under $100. It can be inserted up to six hours before intercourse. Spermicidal jelly is available over the counter and is pretty inexpensive. Your OBGYN can prescribe the diaphragm as part of your normal visit. So it’s not like a woman has to chose between $1000/yr pills and nothing.
Vasectomies aren’t covered by insurance. A man may not want to deal with an unwanted pregnancy either, but that doesn’t mean that vasectomies should be mandated coverage.
I don’t have a problem with BC pills being covered. I think it makes good sense. But I don’t agree with all the arguments saying how awful it would be not to cover them and that the govt is sticking it’s nose in women’s business.
These are the kind of arguments I don’t think should be made in these discussions. Pregnancy is an inconvenience, not a problem. You may not want to deal with the pregnancy, but generally you will be fine afterwards. It’s a temporary condition which will solve itself in 9 months. And if you don’t want to carry it to term, there are ways to terminate the pregnancy as soon as you find out.
And when you make ad hominem attacks against people who are making counter arguments, it makes it hard to take your position seriously. You may not agree with my position, but that doesn’t mean I’m being demeaning or insulting.
Your characterization of pregnancy as a short-term inconvenience with no long-term or lasting effects is laughable, but what I really want to ask is: Are you seriously suggesting, as the last sentence in your post indicates, that women use abortion as a form of birth control in lieu of the pill or any other contraceptive method?
Condoms are available over the counter. Birth control pills (and diaphragms, IUDs, NuvaRing, etc. which should also be covered IMO) require a prescription. Insurance doesn’t generally cover ANY otc medications, but it does cover most prescriptions. I promise you that this isn’t hard to figure out if you just think on it a little.
There’s nothing odd about that at all. Why are employers with less than 50 employees exempt from providing insurance?
Except nobody is asking the Catho;ic church to give money directly for borthcontrol. They are providing insurance for employees and the employee is making the choice of how they use it. Much like they pay the employees a paycheck and they decide how to spend it.
It is a good question but it has nothing to do with the issue of religious freedom that the Catholic clergy is screaming about.
I think the idea is basically that insurance companies should cover all FDA approved perscription drugs, rather than being selective. I haven’t read why the no co pay was put in place.
