FWIW, TANSTAAFL isn’t really obscure, IMO.
Geeze, dude, it’s an acronym that’s been around in popular culture for getting close to a hundred years now. Somehow it’s our fault that you don’t know it? Maybe we should provide a glossary of every word used at the bottom of each post for you as well, just in case someone has a larger vocabulary.
It’s too bad they don’t. (Yes, I know that this list excludes common Internet abbreviations, including TANSTAAFL, but it does provide a handy link to them.)
Obviously the question Elendil’s Heir wants to see addressed is, why are some people so obsessed about everyone getting all forms of contraception covered by insurance with no copay, while exhibiting no interest in getting other medications covered in the same manner. I have a copay for my anti-depressants. For me they’re not such a big deal, but for some people it may be a life-and-death matter. Surely paying for someone’s anti-depressants is cheaper than covering the costs of a suicide attempt. Why doesn’t Obama require that all insurance plans cover every existing anti-depressant with no copay? Aspirin prevents heart attacks. Why doesn’t Obama require that all insurance plans cover aspirin with no copay? Why doesn’t Obama require that all insurance plans cover all medications that might prevent a disease with no copay? What’s so special about birth control, that makes it more important than other medications that can prevent serious medical problems or even save lives?
Well, yeah, but for the last almost-40 years, the American response has been “abortion”. Many insurance programs covered no other “female health” items; only that one and only because of Roe vs. Wade. It’s as if they considered “being female” as “a preexisting condition”. I’ll accept the preexisting part, but not the notion that an uterus is an illness.
Wrong. Why did they wait until the Catholic Church started getting riled up about the previous rule to make it policy? It was a political move, nothing more. Of course when you start giving out things for “free” people are going to be on your side. This is the first commandment of the Democratic Party.
It isn’t free at all, though. The insurance company has to buy the contraceptives still. They’ll just take the money from the policy holders.
Insurance is not part of a person’s wages. If I decline my insurance at work, I don’t get that money in my paycheck. The company just saves paying its portion of my insurance.
You ended your post quite nicely here. It is in fact a “no brainer”, because government is taking the need away from individuals to use their brain. Maybe we should be looking to government to decide other life decisions we might get “wrong”.
Why did the Catholic Church wait until now to get riled up about the previous rule?
Based on conversations I’ve ATTEMPTED to have with Teabaggers and other right-wing morons, I’d say you’re spot-on with that observation.
The major issue was that some EMPLOYERS (who happened to be religious institutions represented during the original hearings in front of Congress) wanted to prevent the insurance policies that they offer as a benefit from covering contraception AT ALL. Not offering them with co-pay. They didn’t want to be “forced” to offer insurance policies that provided reproductive health care for women AT ALL. Which places the employer in the position of making health care decisions for their employees instead of those decisions being made my doctors and patients.
And yet my company includes the insurance premiums they pay as part of my total compensation package.
Some historical perspective: Widespread employer paid medical insurance came about because of salary freezes during WWII which prevented employers from offering higher wages to woo employees. They are a form of compensation that employers offer. Just like a pension plan, a fitness center, and a company car. Hell, even parking can be considered compensation.
That doesn’t mean it’s not part of your compensation, it just means that you’re comfortable leaving that money on the table. Good on you. Hey, it’s your money, you can leave it anywhere you like.
Btw, your situation isn’t universal. I’ve worked for companies that DO offer you the option of extra cash if you decline their insurance.
Exactly, and well stated.
And, I’d like to point out that the political divide over this issue is primarily due to the “individualistic” position of conservatives vs the “socialistic” position of most liberals. It’s not due to Republicans hating women; it’s not due to Democrats wanting everything to be free for everyone; its due to Republicans being more concerned about the independence of the individual and Democrats being more concerned about the welfare of all at the cost of the individual. Our history is filled with such debates and finding a balance between the two is best.
That said. . . I’ve always used a rubber and had to pay for them myself. . . and I don’t think there’s a rubber mandate in the healthcare bill. . . but, frankly I’m just glad I don’t have to give birth, so we’ll leave it at that.
Yep… same here. Each year the company sends me a nice glossy report of all the wonderful things they do for me, and at the bottom there’s a big fat number that includes insurance premiums.
But to answer the OP, when the government wants to get its hand in socializing healthcare, it’s not about helping individual people. It’s about helping society in the aggregate. Preventive medicine is massively beneficial to society because treatment costs so much more than prevention. Birth control can be considered a general case of preventive medicine because by preventing people, you prevent treatments. And of course there are so many other social costs reduced by avoiding unwanted pregnancy.
In that light, spending a thousand bucks a year on birth control is much more compelling than treating life-threatening conditions. You may not agree with the morality of it, but the logic makes sense.
That doesn’t explain why we see people so obsessed with the need to cover birth control while apparently not caring about coverage of anything else. My employer shopped for insurance plans and chose a plan that requires a sizable copay for my anti-depressants. While I can pay it without difficulty, a poorer employee could have trouble making that copay. So with regard to such a poorer employee, wouldn’t the employer be “in the position of making health care decisions”? If so, then how is that situation with anti-depressants any different from the same decision with birth control?
Further, though you wouldn’t know it from listening to Democratic Party announcements, Obama’s mandate does not cover all employers. Employers who hire fewer than fifty employees are not covered by the mandate. So if it’s wrong for employers to make health care decisions for their employees, why aren’t the liberal activists all worked up about the prospect of employers with less than fifty employees having exactly that power?
Why do they pay for it in the first place?
You do understand the difference between wages and compensation, right?
It is good policy to provide simple preventative medicines and care, even where inexpensive, as part of health insurance. This is widely agreed.
If such medical care is mandated, lines need to be drawn. Since, IIRC, many contraceptives are available only with prescription, drawing the line to include them is logical.
Color me libertarian, but I would prefer a system where government provides basic taxpayer-financed care for everyone, and private insurance companies are free to tailor private extended coverage with few restrictions.
I’m quite doubtful about claims that Democrats have forced coverage of contraceptives and abortions to provoke right-wing idiocy, and then garner votes from the backlash against such idiocy. I’d guess the opposite: that Republicans are happy to see such “wedge issues” installed in health-care legislation to help keep their base enraged.
If you honestly think the Republican position can be comfortably described as a concern for the independence of the individual, I’ve got a shitload of “what abouts” ready for you to address.
I pay no copay for wellness visits or preventive services under my health plan, but I do when I go in for treatment when I’m sick. I didn’t ever think to be up in arms about the injustice of it all.
What’s so special about vaccinations? What’s so special about fluoride treatments? Here is the list of things requiring no co pay. What do they all (including birth control) have in common? They lower costs of health care. Should more things be on the list? Probably.
Do you believe parents should need to pay out of pocket for the MMR vaccine because insurance doesn’t have to pay for aspirin? Actually, guess what? Aspirin is on the no-copay list:
[QUOTE=link above]
Aspirin use for men and women of certain ages
[/QUOTE]
Be upfront about the fact that you find contraception special and different from other preventative care on moral grounds. Otherwise you should be just as upset at the fact that HIV screenings and aspirin are on the list.
Unless I am mistaken, the contraception rule was first proposed over six months ago. During the public comment period the Catholic Church objected to the requirement for religious affiliates to also have birth control coverage so recently the administration modified the rule in an attempt to compromise. The timelines I have seen go like this:
March 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passes
August 1, 2011: As per PPAPA HHS releases new rules to go into effect August 2012
February 2012: Rules modified based on public comment