Let’s not forget that in the Hobby Lobby case, only 4 specific contraceptives were at issue, and their employees can still obtain the pill and a bunch of other contraceptives. They are not “preventing” their employees from getting contraceptives. I am not a supporter of the decision, but let’s make sure we have the facts.
As for employer-sponsored health plans, the employer wants to provide some sort of health insurance to it’s employees - as part of their compensation to attract and retain good employees. The employer is mainly looking at how to keep the costs of this benefit under control. That is why in recent years people have seen their choices narrowed, costs going up, and employees being asked to take-on more of the burden. The employer wants to be able to afford to provide at least catastrophic coverage as well as maintenance, and insurers are looking at ways to provide just what the employer needs without a lot of fluff which adds cost.
It’s terrible, I agree. But isn’t that just going to take us into a system where people are offended their tax dollars are being used to fund contraception? That’s not going to go down any easier.
I’m doubtful that this is what the bill was intended to do.
Offer the tax break to individuals and not companies. No one complains now that GM offers tax deductible health care w/ contraception to their employees.
I suspect that quite a few Congresscritters did intend this. But if you’re right, then Congress can easily remedy the situation.
You see, here in America we’ve got this thing called a “vote”, which allows us to “elect” the people who we feel best represent our interests- with government healthcare, the people who set the policy ultimately report to us, the “voters”. Can’t really do that with a private company- the only choice you get is “their way or the highway”.
This is true. But isn’t this already this case in so many other areas – people being offended that their tax dollars are being used to support environmental regulations, for example, or educational systems that teach about evolution? Part of the answer is that universal single-payer health care solves an immense plethora of problems while dramatically cutting costs. That part is indisputable. The other part is that a civilized society has to navigate a rational path through the myriad of prejudices and superstitions that permeate it and it will inevitably offend some of those that adhere to those beliefs. What else can you say to that minority of ideologues except “too bad”? You can’t possibly accommodate diametrically opposed views except to say that the government will stay out of it and let individuals make their own decisions on philosophically controversial matters. The problem with ideologues is that they have a peculiarly narrow concept of what “freedom” really means.
Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying: I don’t think people who oppose the ACA and demand a free pass based on religious beliefs will like this idea any better. If tax credits can get it done, great. I’m not sure there’s an easy path to there from here, though.
Taxpayer money has been used to fund contraception for decades. If the government simply wanted to pay for everyone’s contraception it could do so. Justice Alito in his Hobby Lobby majority opinion specifically noted that this possibility exists and could be implemented easily.
But for some reason, liberal Democrats won’t do this. They’ve howled at Alito’s judgment as being a violation of some sort of right and an imposition of someone’s belief on someone else. Most liberals reject the idea of the government providing contraception for everyone, free of charge. Unless they can force religious conservatives to buy contraception coverage with their own money, liberals just won’t be happy. Why this is, I don’t know.
(As for me, in finest Rhett Butler fashion, I don’t really give a damn about the government buying contraception with my taxpayer money. It does piss me off that the government starts wars, launches drone strikes, imposes the death penalty, wages the “war on drugs”, and supports brutal dictatorships with my taxpayer money. But there’s not much I can do about that.)
We only have one government, if you vote for free contraceptions and you lose the vote then you and everyone who agrees with you has the will of the majority forced on them. If you don’t like your company’s health plan, you can go to one of ten thousand other companies and work there. You can even start your own company and hand out IUDs as part of the welcome package.
The only option for government healthcare is like it or lump it, with private plans you are free to choose whatever choice works better for you.
This sounds good (I guess, to someone) but omits all the nuance. Which is why it’s a recap of OP that doesn’t acknowledge anything that’s been discussed since then.
The conflict is not really even statutory, the ACA provided for the HHS to determine the minimum benefits health care plans were allowed to offer. It is the HHS that made the ruling that all health care plans had to include 20 forms of contraceptives. Several Democrat lawmakers who voted for the ACA have stated they would not have done so had they known it would have forced companies to include all the contraceptives.
Democratic politicians and the liberal media couldn’t possibly care less about whether anyone has access to health care. They do not make decisions based what’s good for anyone. They make decisions based on political expediency. They think that babbling about the false claim that the Hobby Lobby decision denies someone “access” to birth control is good politics, because they hope to use it as a stick to beat the Republicans. Consequently they say it over and over again, even though anyone smarter than a brick knows that it’s not true.
On the other hand, the sky-high deductibles are not a good stick with which to beat the Republicans. The sky-high deductibles are the fault of Obamacare. Since the law drives up the costs of providing insurance, insurers must look for ways to pass costs on the consumers, and rising deductibles are the result. Democrats don’t seem to mind that this is happening, but they’d prefer that the voters not know that it’s happening. Of course, conservative and libertarian news sites give the issue a lot of attention.
If anything, when the cause of the sky-high deductibles comes out (Obamacare), that’ll be an even bigger stick for the Republicans to wield, especially to their own base of relatively affluent white people, because where the theory hits practice is exactly where these people with insurance will have gone from the older co-pay, no-deductible model to this newer high-deductible model… for the same amount or more paid in premiums. They’re actually getting less for more money, and that’ll be a hard sell when coupled up with rhetoric about lazy poor people, etc…
One of the reasons companies switch health care companies is that costs are going up quickly in a depressed economy. They can either cut your wages or try to find a cheaper plan. Since cutting wages is more visible, they choose the cheaper plan option. One of the reasons you health insurance is so expensive is actual cheap insurance is illegal. Mandating a myriad of benefits does not cost the HHS anything but costs the insurance companies who pass it along to their customers. There is no savings in mandating free contraception. The cost just shifts from the person buying to the insurance company. The insurance company then raises rates on the employer.
The purpose of insurance is to protect against unlikely but expensive occurences, pooling risk makes it less catastrophic. Contraception is a regular and inexpensive expense. It just makes insurance more expensive.
I know, right, prior to the ACA, health care cost increases were barely keeping pace with inflation. On a per capita basis, the US paid at least 10 or 15% less than countries with universal health care systems.
Now, as a complete shock to everyone, health care costs are going up more than inflation, and we pay more than other countries too. If only those damn Democrats kept their paws off of our health care system, everyone would be so much happier, and have better coverage for less.
What a load of complete and utter horse shit. You’re just demonizing your opponents. Makes it easier to feel superior when you delude yourself about what the other side thinks I guess. Much easier than actually trying to understand those you disagree with. Doesn’t do much good to do this kind of bs in a debate though, unless you don’t mind no one taking your posts seriously anymore.
Heck, if the U.S. Air Force would stop buying stealth bombers, the House Republicans could easily fund and pass their long-planned “Everybody Gets a Pony” Act but gosh-darn if their hands just aren’t tied.
Problem is, the government funding contraception directly is a less restrictive means of furthering the compelling interest than what they did. The fact that there’s a political obstacle is irrelevant. The standard is not “The least restrictive means politics will allow.” In other words, if the public won’t support the government paying for everyone’s contraception, then it can’t just be fobbed off onto corporations because the public will tolerate that instead.