PDA

View Full Version : Obama Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama


Pages : [1] 2

HonestChieffan
02-06-2012, 07:33 PM
Looks like the big guns will come out on this issue. Will Obama back down or stand against the Catholic church?


Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments
Donohue Says 70 Million Of His Voters Ready To Alter Presidential Election
February 6, 2012 7:44 PM


NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Catholic leaders upped the ante Monday, threatening to challenge the Obama administration over a provision of the new health care law that would require all employers, including religious institutions, to pay for birth control.

As CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer reports, it could affect the presidential elections.

Catholic leaders are furious and determined to harness the voting power of the nation’s 70 million Catholic voters to stop a provision of President Barack Obama’s new heath car reform bill that will force Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to buy birth control pills, abortion-producing drugs and sterilization coverage for their employees.

“Never before, unprecedented in American history, for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church,” said Catholic League head Bill Donohue.

Already Archbishop Timothy Dolan has spoken out against the law and priests around the country have mobilized, reading letters from the pulpit. Donohue said Catholic officials will stop at nothing to put a stop to it.

“This is going to be fought out with lawsuits, with court decisions, and, dare I say it, maybe even in the streets,” Donohue said.


But pro-choice groups said they will fight the church and fight for the right of employees of Catholic institutions to have birth control and other services paid for.

“The Catholic hierarchy seems to be playing a cynical game of chicken and they don’t seem to care that the health and well being of millions of American woman are what’s at stake here,” National Abortion Rights Action League President Andrea Miller said.

Catholic leaders hope they will have more sway with the White House than usual because it is a presidential election year, hoping that if even a small percentage of Catholics back Obama’s opponent it could cost him the election.

When asked if this issue would affect who he would vote for in November, Wilton, Conn., resident Peter Taylor said, “Potentially, yes. I think it is a very serious issue, very meaningful.”

But not everyone views the situation as dire.

“I would certainly vote for Obama anyway. The church has to get up to date,” Manhattan resident Sue Thomas said.

Sources told Kramer that American bishops are contemplating a massive march on Washington, using people and school kids bused in from all over to protest the law.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/06/catholic-league-poised-to-go-to-war-with-obama-over-mandatory-birth-control-payments/


Read here for another level the Church has had to fight

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/archbishop-us-troops-obamacare-reg-blow-freedomfor-which-you-have-seen-your-buddies

Direckshun
02-06-2012, 07:38 PM
It's an interest group.

They're constantly poised at all hours of every day to go to war with anybody and everybody.

It's what they exist to do.

But other than that, this is really shocking information.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 07:46 PM
So I was thinking about this issue and I have a question for those of you who support Obama on this...

First let's imagine you are a business owner with thousands upon thousand of employees.

Second, let's imagine there is a drug that can act as selective contraceptive / abortifacient .. it will keep a woman from getting pregnant with a GAY baby.

Third, let's say HHS decides that since it is a contraceptive, they are on board and paying for it is is a required part of all health care plans.

Would you be ok with being forced to pay for a drug that would allow people to effectively wipe out homosexuality?

alnorth
02-06-2012, 07:46 PM
In related news, the Poker Players Alliance, another interest group, is poised to go to war with Santorum if he's the nominee.

alnorth
02-06-2012, 07:49 PM
Would you be ok with being forced to pay for a drug that would allow people to effectively wipe out homosexuality?

Nope, such a thing would swiftly be condemned as immoral, on par with selective abortion to get rid of girls in a family that wants a boy. Not illegal, but immoral, and no one is going to agree with funding selective female abortion.

The flaw in your argument is that you are conceding that people are born gay. I do agree with that, but most religious conservatives impulsively refuse to believe in that, because once you accept that people can be born gay, it opens up a whole new can of worms. (worm #1 being, why would God condemn homosexuality to be a sin, then create homosexuals? Answer: Either the bible is wrong, or God is a non-existent fairy tale)

Garcia Bronco
02-06-2012, 07:53 PM
Insurance is supposed to be for medical conditions of a serious nature. Not for women to use it on contraception. This is another reason why medical costs and taxes to pay medical costs are ever increasing.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 07:54 PM
Nope, such a thing would swiftly be condemned as immoral, on par with selective abortion to get rid of girls in a family that wants a boy. Not illegal, but immoral, and no one is going to agree with funding selective female abortion.

The flaw in your argument is that you are conceding that people are born gay. I do agree with that, but most religious conservatives impulsively refuse to believe in that, because once you accept that people can be born gay, it opens up a whole new can of worms. (worm #1 being, why would God condemn homosexuality to be a sin, then create homosexuals? Answer: Either the bible is wrong, or God is a non-existent fairy tale)

Yes I know the flaw, but let's ignore that aspect since it has nothing to do with the point of the question. Let's imagine that everyone agrees that people are born gay or straight.

So the question remains.. if someone here who supports Obama on this.. will please explain to me if they would support my example.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 07:54 PM
There's a LOT of Catholics in this country. I think they're the largest Christian denomination and that Obama carried the Catholic vote in the last election. Well, he's going to lose it this time. Hispanics are also Catholic. This may cost him the election. It's not just "some" interest group.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 07:56 PM
Insurance is supposed to be for medical conditions of a serious nature. Not for women to use it on contraception. This is another reason why medical costs and taxes to pay medical costs are ever increasing.

That's true.

mnchiefsguy
02-06-2012, 07:56 PM
In related news, the Poker Players Alliance, another interest group, is poised to go to war with Santorum if he's the nominee.

Now this is a war worth fighting! Free the poker players!

RJ
02-06-2012, 08:02 PM
Insurance is supposed to be for medical conditions of a serious nature. Not for women to use it on contraception. This is another reason why medical costs and taxes to pay medical costs are ever increasing.


Pregnancy is a very expensive medical condition.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 08:06 PM
There's a LOT of Catholics in this country. I think they're the largest Christian denomination and that Obama carried the Catholic vote in the last election. Well, he's going to lose it this time.

They are FAR AND AWAY the largest denomination at 74 million. (unless you count Protestants as one group) and Obama carried them 55% to 45% last election. If 50% of them voted.. you have 37 million voters. Split that 55/45 and you have 20,350,000 / 16,650,000. So he stands to lose a percentage of the 20 million. I'd wager that at this rate, he actually stands to lose 50% of them. (Of course this is due to a combination of this issue with his complete abortion of a presidency)

SO can he stand to lose 10 million votes? The simple answer is no.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 08:08 PM
Pregnancy is a very expensive medical condition.

Not compared to some other illnesses. A C-section is what $15k all inclusive? Could be more now. That's what I paid.

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 08:10 PM
Insurance is supposed to be for medical conditions of a serious nature. Not for women to use it on contraception. This is another reason why medical costs and taxes to pay medical costs are ever increasing.

Yes, its much cheaper to keep having babies.

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 08:11 PM
Not compared to some other illnesses. A C-section is what $15k all inclusive? Could be more now. That's what I paid.

Pregnancy leads to C-sections...

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 08:16 PM
Seriously? No one wants to address my post? My guess is... the left would be AGHAST at the idea of being forced to pay for a selective anti-gay drug. Can someone explain to me why then it is any different forcing someone else to pay for something that THEY find just as appalling?

(just to be clear, I have nothing against homosexuality, it is just a part of the argument)

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 08:23 PM
Seriously? No one wants to address my post? My guess is... the left would be AGHAST at the idea of being forced to pay for a selective anti-gay drug. Can someone explain to me why then it is any different forcing someone else to pay for something that THEY find just as appalling?

Ill take a stab at it.

If we pay for contraceptives, it saves money in the long run, therefore its a good investment.
This anti Gay drug of yours will not save any money, the child would still be born, so no, I wouldnt want to pay for it. However if someone chooses to take this drug themselves and pay for it themselves, thats their business.

HonestChieffan
02-06-2012, 08:27 PM
Maybe if we didn't pay for babies like they grow in litters and bunches we would save some money as well. Brings to mind that recent story about the Atlanta woman who was worried about who was gonna pay for all her babies...all 15 or so of them.

If you had 15 dogs in a house the health department would shut you down.

alnorth
02-06-2012, 08:32 PM
Insurance is supposed to be for medical conditions of a serious nature. Not for women to use it on contraception. This is another reason why medical costs and taxes to pay medical costs are ever increasing.

I actually agree with you on this.

I don't believe contraception should be mandatory coverage for health insurance any more than condoms should be. If a health insurance company wants to cover it, fine, but all employers should be free to save money by buying a slightly-cheaper policy that excludes contraception.

alnorth
02-06-2012, 08:33 PM
There's a LOT of Catholics in this country. I think they're the largest Christian denomination and that Obama carried the Catholic vote in the last election. Well, he's going to lose it this time. Hispanics are also Catholic. This may cost him the election. It's not just "some" interest group.

For some reason you think Catholics agree with the church on contraception. Very few of them do.

alnorth
02-06-2012, 08:34 PM
They are FAR AND AWAY the largest denomination at 74 million. (unless you count Protestants as one group) and Obama carried them 55% to 45% last election. If 50% of them voted.. you have 37 million voters. Split that 55/45 and you have 20,350,000 / 16,650,000. So he stands to lose a percentage of the 20 million. I'd wager that at this rate, he actually stands to lose 50% of them. (Of course this is due to a combination of this issue with his complete abortion of a presidency)

SO can he stand to lose 10 million votes? The simple answer is no.

They seem to have little problem voting for pro-abortion candidates.

A lot of so-called catholics are socially catholic. Going through the motions because they are raised that way, or they don't want to disappoint their family, maybe they vaguely believe in a Christian God but privately think a lot of the pope's rantings is loony, etc.

RedNeckRaider
02-06-2012, 08:38 PM
I remember when the Catholic church went to war with Ron Howard and Tom Hanks over the Da Vinci Code. Both survived as did the movie~

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 08:40 PM
Ill take a stab at it.

If we pay for contraceptives, it saves money in the long run, therefore its a good investment.
This anti Gay drug of yours will not save any money, the child would still be born, so no, I wouldnt want to pay for it. However if someone chooses to take this drug themselves and pay for it themselves, thats their business.

So, your argument is based on money? I will need to see concrete evidence taking into account the myriad of factors involved.. showing me that chemical contraceptives save taxpayer dollars in the long run. I have ZERO clue if they do or not. BUT I can put forth a ton of possible arguments showing that they might not. I will go so far as to say that there is no possible way to actually know for a fact if they do or don't.

For example... let's say a certain percentage of women don't take the pill because it is too expensive (and not for ANY other reason)... at $1/day I find that hard to image, but oh well. Now, what EXACT percentage of women will that be? Of that % of women who don't take the pill how many will have sex anyway? Of THAT % how many won't insist on their partner using a condom? NOW.. take this final % and figure out how many will get pregnant. OK NOW take that % and factor out the amount of those that at some point WOULD have wanted a baby and gotten pregnant at some point anyway. Now of those unwanted leftover babies that you have.. what is the EXACT cost for all of them. Oh crap, I forgot, you also need to go back and factor in the effect of how many women who had the free pill but took other medications or skipped days and made it ineffective anyway.

BUT WAIT.. you forgot something else! Women using the pill could have a higher instance of STDs due to unprotected sex rates going up.(I don't have the studies on hand, but I can look them up if need be). So now take THAT cost into effect.

In the end.. the cost argument is not a very good one at all. At best, you are completely guessing that it is an overall tax dollar cost savings. I'd be guessing as well... the fact is, no credible study has been done or even could be done that takes into account the ridiculous numbers involved.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 08:43 PM
They seem to have little problem voting for pro-abortion candidates.

A lot of so-called catholics are socially catholic. Going through the motions because they are raised that way, or they don't want to disappoint their family, maybe they vaguely believe in a Christian God but privately think a lot of the pope's rantings is loony, etc.

BUT just like any laissez-faire member of a club.. they tend to get riled up when they feel their club is under attack. I spent 13 years in Catholic school (no I wasn't held back.. K-12) and I would say that 90% of the people I knew wouldn't agree with the Church on telling THEM what to do regarding contraceptives but they'd be DAMNED if an outside group tried to tell the Church what to believe.

alnorth
02-06-2012, 08:44 PM
You aren't going to win an economic argument. Pregnancy is incredibly expensive. You'd almost have to ask us to accept a presumption that everyone who got pregnant in the absence of contraceptive coverage would have aborted.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 08:45 PM
For some reason you think Catholics agree with the church on contraception. Very few of them do.

Very few? I don't know about it being that much especially with Hispanics. Let's say you're correct though, does that mean they like the state forcing their church to change their faith instead of it changing internally? It's not likely to mean as much and it still comes off as the state being the bully.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 08:46 PM
BUT just like any laissez-faire member of a club.. they tend to get riled up when they feel their club is under attack. I spent 13 years in Catholic school (no I wasn't held back.. K-12) and I would say that 90% of the people I knew wouldn't agree with the Church on telling THEM what to do regarding contraceptives but they'd be DAMNED if an outside group tried to tell the Church what to believe.

Yup! I agree especially when it's a Protestant.

RJ
02-06-2012, 08:47 PM
Not compared to some other illnesses. A C-section is what $15k all inclusive? Could be more now. That's what I paid.

You can cover a helluva lot of birth control pills for what one no-complications pregnancy costs.

Just saying that the pills are a lot cheaper than what they are designed to prevent.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 08:48 PM
Pregnancy leads to C-sections...

A C section is major surgery. Normal delivery of a baby is not. A C-Section is more money.
Some medical conditions cost hundreds of thousands of dollars....even millions.

alnorth
02-06-2012, 08:50 PM
BUT just like any laissez-faire member of a club.. they tend to get riled up when they feel their club is under attack. I spent 13 years in Catholic school (no I wasn't held back.. K-12) and I would say that 90% of the people I knew wouldn't agree with the Church on telling THEM what to do regarding contraceptives but they'd be DAMNED if an outside group tried to tell the Church what to believe.

You may be right on this one. I hadn't thought of it quite that way, but it makes sense.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 08:50 PM
You can cover a helluva lot of birth control pills for what one no-complications pregnancy costs.

Just saying that the pills are a lot cheaper than what they are designed to prevent.

Birth control pills are affordable though. They are not medically necessary. Mandating more items for insurance to cover drives up the cost of insurance. Insurance should be insurance as in to protect against bankruptcy not to pay for every little item. This is the problem with many Americans today, they don't want to pay for any part of their own health. Irresponsible. They have reaped the bad effects of this behavior with unaffordable insurance premiums.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 08:51 PM
You aren't going to win an economic argument. Pregnancy is incredibly expensive. You'd almost have to ask us to accept a presumption that everyone who got pregnant in the absence of contraceptive coverage would have aborted.

I actually already won the economic argument.

UNLESS you propose chemical sterilization... free contraceptives won't do jack shit for the economy.

You do know that contraceptives are free in California(for the most part)? And hell, they are actually free all over the place as it is.

Read my earlier post to see why the economics argument fails on so many levels.

Yes, too many poor babies is a problem. Free contraceptives does NOTHING to solve it.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 08:52 PM
You can cover a helluva lot of birth control pills for what one no-complications pregnancy costs.

Just saying that the pills are a lot cheaper than what they are designed to prevent.

As a matter of fact, they are so cheap as to be practically free already. Which is why making them free will have ZERO effect(statistically insignificant) on unwanted pregnancy numbers.

RJ
02-06-2012, 08:52 PM
I'm going to take a wild assed, shot in the dark guess here and say that the insurance companies have determined that birth control is less costly than pregnancy. They probably even did some kind of study.

RJ
02-06-2012, 08:54 PM
As a matter of fact, they are so cheap as to be practically free already. Which is why making them free will have ZERO effect(statistically insignificant) on unwanted pregnancy numbers.



Are they available over the counter?

That may be a dumb question but I don't know the answer.

alnorth
02-06-2012, 08:54 PM
I actually already won the economic argument.

UNLESS you propose chemical sterilization... free contraceptives won't do jack shit for the economy.

You do know that contraceptives are free in California(for the most part)? And hell, they are actually free all over the place as it is. Read my post to see why the economics argument fails.

Yes, too many poor babies is a problem. Free contraceptives does NOTHING to solve it.

You can argue that contraceptive coverage wont do MUCH, but it seems difficult if not impossible to argue that mandatory contraceptive coverage will cost us more money on a net basis.

I oppose mandatory employer contraceptive coverage for other reasons.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 08:59 PM
I'm going to take a wild assed, shot in the dark guess here and say that the insurance companies have determined that birth control is less costly than pregnancy. They probably even did some kind of study.

Nope. I have looked and not found ONE study that takes into account the overall costs by taking into account even HALF the factors I laid out in my post.

The problem is that WE are trying to say that free contraceptives = significant reduction in pregnancies. Even THAT is not true. I would wager there might be a slight decrease but nothing significant.

As I pointed out, they are pretty much free as it is!

They are not available OTC but they may as well be. Any woman can go to a Planned Parenthood clinic and get them free if they can't afford the $15/month for the cheapest ones.

NO ONE is getting pregnant because they couldn't afford the pill. Period.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 09:00 PM
I'm going to take a wild assed, shot in the dark guess here and say that the insurance companies have determined that birth control is less costly than pregnancy. They probably even did some kind of study.

Well first off, pregnancy is usually in addition to a regular policy....and it's expensive to add to your coverage because insurance companies know you're going to use it if you have it. Some states mandate it but it drives up the cost. It was when I was in Mass. However, Mass also had obstetricians leaving the state with a shortage at one point. Don't know if it was just that or combined with other reasons but Mass has been interventionist in such things—trying to make it better but instead making things worse.

Other than that, this whole argument as to what pregnancy costs versus what contraceptives costs is one based on a collectivist argument—what it's costing the group or the country. In a free society which requires individual responsibility that argument is irrelevant. It should be up to the individual. Not the state.

RJ
02-06-2012, 09:01 PM
Are they available over the counter?

That may be a dumb question but I don't know the answer.


Anyone?

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 09:03 PM
You can argue that contraceptive coverage wont do MUCH, but it seems difficult if not impossible to argue that mandatory contraceptive coverage will cost us more money on a net basis.

I oppose mandatory employer contraceptive coverage for other reasons.

I will not argue that it will cost more or less. I am saying that NO ONE can prove it either way due to all the things I laid out in my post. Ok, maybe it can be proven but I have yet to see anything even close to a comprehensive study.

So the economics argument should be off the table. So, let's move on from there.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 09:04 PM
Anyone?

I don't know. I never used them after a few months of first trying them.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 09:04 PM
Anyone?

I answered! :D No, it is not OTC, it is prescription.. BUT you don't have to go to a doctor, you could go to any free clinic or planned parenthood and get a script. It would then cost you $15/month UNLESS you can't afford it, in which case you get them free from the clinic or Planned Parenthood or some states like California give them out.

Garcia Bronco
02-06-2012, 09:06 PM
Pregnancy is a very expensive medical condition.

You can pay for that on your own too. I'll still kick in for the public school, though. :p

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 09:06 PM
You can pay for that on your own too. I'll still kick in for the public school, though. :p

ROFL

Garcia Bronco
02-06-2012, 09:08 PM
Yes, its much cheaper to keep having babies.

Its actually cheaper to exercise personal responsibilty and a little self-discipline.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 09:09 PM
RJ, you can have a baby at home with a midwife too. That'll save you money too.

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 09:14 PM
Its actually cheaper to exercise personal responsibilty and a little self-discipline.

Of course it is, just like smoking but we have to cover the cancer that comes from that.

RJ
02-06-2012, 09:15 PM
You can pay for that on your own too. I'll still kick in for the public school, though. :p


Not for me! If my wife told me she was pregnant again I'd just build myself a shed in the back yard. Actually, that doesn't sound half bad....

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 09:18 PM
I actually already won the economic argument.

UNLESS you propose chemical sterilization... free contraceptives won't do jack shit for the economy.

You do know that contraceptives are free in California(for the most part)? And hell, they are actually free all over the place as it is.

Read my earlier post to see why the economics argument fails on so many levels.

Yes, too many poor babies is a problem. Free contraceptives does NOTHING to solve it.

I disagree. You are basically saying there is no proof that preventative action saves money.
We dont have to do a study to know that never getting a very expensive condition is cheaper than getting it. It is that simple.

RJ
02-06-2012, 09:20 PM
I answered! :D No, it is not OTC, it is prescription.. BUT you don't have to go to a doctor, you could go to any free clinic or planned parenthood and get a script. It would then cost you $15/month UNLESS you can't afford it, in which case you get them free from the clinic or Planned Parenthood or some states like California give them out.


Ok, then this is where I don't get the argument.

If I'm a woman and I pay for insurance and if my insurance includes a prescription plan and if I can only get birth control by prescription.....then why would my birth control not be covered by my insurance?

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 09:22 PM
I disagree. You are basically saying there is no proof that preventative action saves money.
We dont have to do a study to know that never getting a very expensive condition is cheaper than getting it. It is that simple.

Here's the flaw in your argument though: Economics has to do with choices which stem from what each individual values. You're treating the subject like it's a disease. There are people out there that WANT to conceive children. So you can't act like you're paying for nothing. There's an exchange that occurs where you get something—something that was once considered a blessing. It's a matter of what one values. A group decision, such as the state, ignores the different values. There are people who are WILLING to pay for having that child.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 09:23 PM
Ok, then this is where I don't get the argument.

If I'm a woman and I pay for insurance and if my insurance includes a prescription plan and if I can only get birth control by prescription.....then why would my birth control not be covered by my insurance?

Not medically necessary. It's a choice to get pregnant or not want to get pregnant.

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 09:24 PM
Ok, then this is where I don't get the argument.

If I'm a woman and I pay for insurance and if my insurance includes a prescription plan and if I can only get birth control by prescription.....then why would my birth control not be covered by my insurance?

Bingo.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 09:27 PM
I disagree. You are basically saying there is no proof that preventative action saves money.
We dont have to do a study to know that never getting a very expensive condition is cheaper than getting it. It is that simple.

Again you are ignoring THOUSANDS of other factors. Your argument basically says...

"free contraceptives will prevent pregnancy"

...and that is simply NOT true... AND even if it were marginally true it doesn't factor in higher STD rates and many many other cost factors.

Did you read my initial post on this subject?

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 09:29 PM
Here's the flaw in your argument though: Economics has to do with choices which stem from what each individual values. You're treating the subject like it's a disease. There are people out there that WANT to conceive children. So you can't act like you're paying for nothing. There's an exchange that occurs where you get something—something that was once considered a blessing. It's a matter of what one values. A group decision, such as the state, ignores the different values. There are people who are WILLING to pay for having that child.

I am trying to understand your position here and I guess I dont.

I am pro-choice and maybe thats where I am missing your side? I think if someone doesnt want an abortion, then dont have one.
If someone does want to have one, thats their business. I put birth control in the same catagory, so it doesnt matter if someone else would pay for that baby, its not their choice.
Did I miss your point or is this close?

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 09:30 PM
Ok, then this is where I don't get the argument.

If I'm a woman and I pay for insurance and if my insurance includes a prescription plan and if I can only get birth control by prescription.....then why would my birth control not be covered by my insurance?

...because TONS of things are NOT covered by prescription plans. The issue is what should be MANDATORY for a prescription plan to have to cover.

RJ
02-06-2012, 09:31 PM
Not medically necessary. It's a choice to get pregnant or not want to get pregnant.


Again I'm taking a shot in the dark but I think most members of any insurance group probably like having sex and are ok with having some small % of their insurance cost go toward birth control.

Perhaps we could have different policies for the asexual?

Just thinking outside the box here.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 09:31 PM
I am trying to understand your position here and I guess I dont.

I am pro-choice and maybe thats where I am missing your side? I think if someone doesnt want an abortion, then dont have one.
If someone does want to have one, thats their business. I put birth control in the same catagory, so it doesnt matter if someone else would pay for that baby, its not their choice.
Did I miss your point or is this close?

I was talking about the idea that there are people who also want to get pregnant. If you don't you have to take extra precautions and pay for BC pills or whatever.

I don't want to take this into an abortion argument because that to me rests on the concept of if it's just the woman's body or there is another body/life at stake here.
If you think the latter, it's an act of aggression on another and that's where someone's right ends. If it's just tissue mass then it's a choice. Either way, I shouldn't have to pay for that choice either.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 09:33 PM
I am trying to understand your position here and I guess I dont.

I am pro-choice and maybe thats where I am missing your side? I think if someone doesnt want an abortion, then dont have one.
If someone does want to have one, thats their business. I put birth control in the same catagory, so it doesnt matter if someone else would pay for that baby, its not their choice.
Did I miss your point or is this close?

You are missing the point of the ENTIRE argument. It is about forcing people to have to PAY for coverage of something they find morally objectionable.

What about my example from the VERY start of this thread. Would you be ok with having to PAY for coverage of other people who get free access to an anti-gay drug?

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 09:34 PM
Again you are ignoring THOUSANDS of other factors. Your argument basically says...

"free contraceptives will prevent pregnancy"

...and that is simply NOT true... AND even if it were marginally true it doesn't factor in higher STD rates and many many other cost factors.

Did you read my initial post on this subject?

I did I just think you are thinking way to far into it.

Promiscuous people are that way whether insurance covers birth control or not. That eliminates the STD argument. Taking birth control WILL prevent most unwanted pregnancies, that saves money.
Insurance covering birth control is not going to change peoples behavior, only the results from that behavior.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 09:34 PM
Again I'm taking a shot in the dark but I think most members of any insurance group probably like having sex and are ok with having some small % of their insurance cost go toward birth control.

Perhaps we could have different policies for the asexual?

Just thinking outside the box here.

But my point is, that this is affordable and people should be willing to pay for minor health needs. Too many Americans don't want to pay for any part of their healthcare. They just want insurance for it all. I consider that irresponsible.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 09:35 PM
Again I'm taking a shot in the dark but I think most members of any insurance group probably like having sex and are ok with having some small % of their insurance cost go toward birth control.

Perhaps we could have different policies for the asexual?

Just thinking outside the box here.

..but the Catholic Church DOES NOT feel it's "ok" to be forced to pay for these things... it actually has less to do with contraception then it does with abortifacients... but that is splitting hairs really.

It's simple. the Federal Government is trying to force the Church to pay for something they find morally objectionable.

RJ
02-06-2012, 09:36 PM
...because TONS of things are NOT covered by prescription plans. The issue is what should be MANDATORY for a prescription plan to have to cover.


Again I am ignorant.

What other prescriptions are not covered by prescription plans?

I'm sure there are some crazy expensive/experimental type drugs. But if birth control pills are so dang cheap, why would/should they not be covered?

By the way, I don't have any particular dog in this fight, I just don't get why there is a fight. To me it appears very clear cut.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 09:39 PM
This is the problem that gets created when govt gets into healthcare ( or many other things). Since no two people always agree, this human trait gets magnified when the govt is funding something. It creates more contention. This gets worse at the national level as there's so many more to represent. It's no wonder Madison said democracies are contentious and don't last.

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 09:39 PM
You are missing the point of the ENTIRE argument. It is about forcing people to have to PAY for coverage of something they find morally objectionable.

What about my example from the VERY start of this thread. Would you be ok with having to PAY for coverage of other people who get free access to an anti-gay drug?

Not to go in circles here but I gave you my answer to the anti gay drug. It doesnt save the masses any money so it doesnt go into the pool. Preventing an unwanted pregnancy does, so I am OK with it.

There are some groups that find any medical treatment morally objectionable.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 09:40 PM
I did I just think you are thinking way to far into it.

Promiscuous people are that way whether insurance covers birth control or not. That eliminates the STD argument. Taking birth control WILL prevent most unwanted pregnancies, that saves money.
Insurance covering birth control is not going to change peoples behavior, only the results from that behavior.

Again, you are missing HUGE chunks of the argument by trying to oversimplify things.

#1 it does NOT eliminate the STD argument. There are studies that have shown large %s of ignorant people who think the Pill will protect them from STDs and so they don't use a condom.. or the fact that by taking the Pill they are more likely to have unprotected sex because at least one negative factor (pregnancy) isn't an issue

#2 you equate FREE birth control with some sudden uptick in USAGE. That is simply NOT FACTUAL. Lack of usage has almost NOTHING to do with affordability. Period. End of story.

#3 I can go on and on and on on why the "economics" argument is not at ALL valid but it seems like my points are getting dismissed without due consideration

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 09:42 PM
Not to go in circles here but I gave you my answer to the anti gay drug. It doesnt save the masses any money so it doesnt go into the pool. Preventing an unwanted pregnancy does, so I am OK with it.

There are some groups that find any medical treatment morally objectionable.

And you are missing my point which is... FREE contraceptives do NOT EQUATE TO fewer pregnancies. You are basically asking us to believe that there are significantly fewer unwanted pregnancies in California right now. There aren't.

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 09:43 PM
I was talking about the idea that there are people who also want to get pregnant. If you don't you have to take extra precautions and pay for BC pills or whatever.

I don't want to take this into an abortion argument because that to me rests on the concept of if it's just the woman's body or there is another body/life at stake here.
If you think the latter, it's an act of aggression on another and that's where someone's right ends. If it's just tissue mass then it's a choice. Either way, I shouldn't have to pay for that choice either.

Serious question, the people that want to get pregnant, does insurance cover fertilization drugs?

I agree its a tough decision no matter where you stand on abortion. That also goes on the side of lets prevent the whole situation in the first place. Does it not?

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 09:46 PM
Again I am ignorant.

What other prescriptions are not covered by prescription plans?

I'm sure there are some crazy expensive/experimental type drugs. But if birth control pills are so dang cheap, why would/should they not be covered?

By the way, I don't have any particular dog in this fight, I just don't get why there is a fight. To me it appears very clear cut.

Ah, there are TONS upon TONS depending on your plan. Hell a number of plans don't cover quite a few allergy meds. Check your plan's formulary (should be available online) and compare it versus the PDR. It's not even close to just being crazy experimental stuff. I doubt Viagra is covered. And viagra is JUST as much an elective drug as the Pill.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 09:47 PM
Serious question, the people that want to get pregnant, does insurance cover fertilization drugs?
I have no idea.

I agree its a tough decision no matter where you stand on abortion. That also goes on the side of lets prevent the whole situation in the first place. Does it not?

I don't follow.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 09:47 PM
Serious question, the people that want to get pregnant, does insurance cover fertilization drugs?

I agree its a tough decision no matter where you stand on abortion. That also goes on the side of lets prevent the whole situation in the first place. Does it not?

It depends on your plan but in most cases NO.

Also, the problem is that this coverage being forced on the Church INCLUDES abortifacients. (Plan B, etc)

RJ
02-06-2012, 09:49 PM
..but the Catholic Church DOES NOT feel it's "ok" to be forced to pay for these things... it actually has less to do with contraception then it does with abortifacients... but that is splitting hairs really.

It's simple. the Federal Government is trying to force the Church to pay for something they find morally objectionable.


We are a Catholic family. We send my daughter to Catholic school. I give money to the Church and the school on a regular basis. But I think they are way off base on this subject. Where is the line drawn? Can they refuse to pay for STD treatment? AIDS treatment?

It's health insurance we're discussing and to me pregnancy (or its prevention) is a part of women's health and health costs.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 09:51 PM
I just did a quick google....it depends on your policy but as far as I can tell there is no law requiring insurers to cover fertility drugs. They are expensive...up to $1,000 every month. Artificial insemination can run about $500 per attempt. IVF runs patients an average of $12,400 each time.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 09:52 PM
We are a Catholic family. We send my daughter to Catholic school. I give money to the Church and the school on a regular basis. But I think they are way off base on this subject. Where is the line drawn? Can they refuse to pay for STD treatment? AIDS treatment?

It's health insurance we're discussing and to me pregnancy (or its prevention) is a part of women's health and health costs.

Well aids can be contracted from a blood transfusion.

Garcia Bronco
02-06-2012, 09:53 PM
This is the problem that gets created when govt gets into healthcare ( or many other things). Since no two people always agree, this human trait gets magnified when the govt is funding something. It creates more contention. This gets worse at the national level as there's so many more to represent. It's no wonder Madison said democracies are contentious and don't last.

Yes. Yes!

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 09:53 PM
And you are missing my point which is... FREE contraceptives do NOT EQUATE TO fewer pregnancies. You are basically asking us to believe that there are significantly fewer unwanted pregnancies in California right now. There aren't.

I am not trying to dismiss your points but we arent talking about free birth control. We are talking about whether ones health insurance, which is paid for by the individual, should have to cover it.
We are talking about a responsible person who decides to take this birth control pill because she has decided she doesnt want to have a child, should her insurance have to cover it.
Given that the insurance WILL have to cover the cost of the birth of this baby, it would be much more economical for the insurance company to cover the pill.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 09:54 PM
We are a Catholic family. We send my daughter to Catholic school. I give money to the Church and the school on a regular basis. But I think they are way off base on this subject. Where is the line drawn? Can they refuse to pay for STD treatment? AIDS treatment?

It's health insurance we're discussing and to me pregnancy (or its prevention) is a part of women's health and health costs.

Why are you so unwilling to pay for such a small health cost?

You may disagree with your church but that's an individual matter. The church is a Consitutionally protected entity under our Constitution and no law is to be passed on such an establishment as it is an infringement on religion. It's not a matter for the state to stick their noses into.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 09:55 PM
We are a Catholic family. We send my daughter to Catholic school. I give money to the Church and the school on a regular basis. But I think they are way off base on this subject. Where is the line drawn? Can they refuse to pay for STD treatment? AIDS treatment?

It's health insurance we're discussing and to me pregnancy (or its prevention) is a part of women's health and health costs.

HUGE difference. STDs and AIDS are DISEASES. Contraception is a CHOICE. It is purely ELECTIVE.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say the Church is fine with the contraception part. What about the aborifacient issue? Should the Church be forced to PAY for abortions? Please don't tell me you think of abortion as anything but an ELECTIVE procedure.

(just to be clear, I am not on the Catholic Churches side on the issue EXCEPT in one way... they shouldn't be forced to PAY for ELECTIVE procedures/DRUGS they have legitimate moral objections to.

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 09:57 PM
I have no idea.



I don't follow.

If the person takes preventative measures and doesnt get pregnant in the first place we have avoided the whole abortion decision. I figure that goes on the "pro" side of this discussion.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 09:59 PM
I am not trying to dismiss your points but we arent talking about free birth control. We are talking about whether ones health insurance, which is paid for by the individual, should have to cover it.
We are talking about a responsible person who decides to take this birth control pill because she has decided she doesnt want to have a child, should her insurance have to cover it.
Given that the insurance WILL have to cover the cost of the birth of this baby, it would be much more economical for the insurance company to cover the pill.

AH.. there is the problem! WE ARE NOT! We are talking about an individual's health insurance which is paid for by THE CHURCH. RIGHT NOW (before the Federal mandates take effect) if you don't want the Church's insurance (which wouldn't cover it) you can go out and get your own.

Now do you see the issue?

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 10:00 PM
I just did a quick google....it depends on your policy but as far as I can tell there is no law requiring insurers to cover fertility drugs. They are expensive...up to $1,000 every month. Artificial insemination can run about $500 per attempt. IVF runs patients an average of $12,400 each time.

Thank you. I thought it would be strange if insurance companies would pay for that, basically encouraging more expenditures on their part.

BucEyedPea
02-06-2012, 10:03 PM
If the person takes preventative measures and doesnt get pregnant in the first place we have avoided the whole abortion decision.

yeah okay

I figure that goes on the "pro" side of this discussion.

:hmmm: perhaps


I have to go now. Just wanted to wrap up.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 10:08 PM
OK.. let's put it a different way. Let's say the Federal govt decides that they will "hire out" the contraception/abortion service to Planned Parenthood. So NOW instead of your insurance covering these things... a company has to pay 99% into insurance and 1% to Planned Parenthood.

Is it ok to force the Catholic Church to be FORCED to pay money to Planned Parenthood?

Because this is THE SAME ISSUE.

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 10:09 PM
AH.. there is the problem! WE ARE NOT! We are talking about an individual's health insurance which is paid for by THE CHURCH. RIGHT NOW (before the Federal mandates take effect) if you don't want the Church's insurance (which wouldn't cover it) you can go out and get your own.

Now do you see the issue?

OK, I see your point, sorry I should have covered that first. I think if the Church is going to be an employer, they should have to follow the same rules as any other employer.
That does change the whole argument and I should have said that earlier. The reason I left that out is because they are an insurance provider, I dont believe the law separates insurance providers vs religious insurance providers out like the tax laws do. They purchase an insurance policy like anyone else.
In other words you dont get special rights because you are a church, you have to follow those laws. No?
A simple way for the Church to avoid this would be to give the cost of the policy to the employee as a raise and allow them to go get their own policy. Then the church would not be "paying" for these evil pills.

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 10:10 PM
yeah okay



:hmmm: perhaps


I have to go now. Just wanted to wrap up.

Good Night. Thanks

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 10:14 PM
OK.. let's put it a different way. Let's say the Federal govt decides that they will "hire out" the contraception/abortion service to Planned Parenthood. So NOW instead of your insurance covering these things... a company has to pay 99% into insurance and 1% to Planned Parenthood.

Is it ok to force the Catholic Church to be FORCED to pay money to Planned Parenthood?

Because this is THE SAME ISSUE.

This may be redundant to my previous post but perhaps the Church should get out of the business of providing insurance. They could still compensate the employee but allow them to get their own plans.

HonestChieffan
02-06-2012, 10:17 PM
This may be redundant to my previous post but perhaps the Church should get out of the business of providing insurance. They could still compensate the employee but allow them to get their own plans.


Under ObamaCare they can't

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 10:19 PM
This may be redundant to my previous post but perhaps the Church should get out of the business of providing insurance. They could still compensate the employee but allow them to get their own plans.

Um that is the point. The Federal mandates will not ALLOW that. Their only choice would be to take HUGE fines or stop EMPLOYING people.

Right now, it is not an issue. The Church provides insurance just like a regular employer. And just like MANY regular employers, they choose NOT to cover contraceptives. That will all change soon with Obamacare... they will be FORCED to pay for things they don't agree with.

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 10:21 PM
I guess I dont think the church should have a say in what is or isnt covered. Buy the policy or dont.
Do you think that Obama making this a mandatory coverd item has any other reason to do so other than helping women to avoid unwanted pregnancies?

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 10:25 PM
I guess I dont think the church should have a say in what is or isnt covered. Buy the policy or dont.
Do you think that Obama making this a mandatory coverd item has any other reason to do so other than helping women to avoid unwanted pregnancies?

Absolutely has more to do with politics and agendas... but who cares the motives. It's wrong regardless.

You seem to not understand. They can't NOT BUY THE POLICY. Obamacare FORCES them to buy it. There is NO opt out for them.

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 10:28 PM
Um that is the point. The Federal mandates will not ALLOW that. Their only choice would be to take HUGE fines or stop EMPLOYING people.

Right now, it is not an issue. The Church provides insurance just like a regular employer. And just like MANY regular employers, they choose NOT to cover contraceptives. That will all change soon with Obamacare... they will be FORCED to pay for things they don't agree with.

Right, that wont be an option much longer. Boy, did I miss that part.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 10:32 PM
Right, that wont be an option much longer. Boy, did I miss that part.

And that is all I have issue with. The idea that it is OK to force the Church to pay for an elective that they have serious moral objections to.

It's all a moot point because the majority Catholic Supreme Court won't stand for it. It's a pretty substantial violation.

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 10:40 PM
And that is all I have issue with. The idea that it is OK to force the Church to pay for an elective that they have serious moral objections to.

It's all a moot point because the majority Catholic Supreme Court won't stand for it. It's a pretty substantial violation.

I dont see a way he can win this, it will get dropped before the election.

I do see it as a cost effective way to save money on healthcare and I do believe that is the main purpose of this proposition, it just wasnt well thought out.
I suppose they could allow the Church special privileges and let them opt out. That would be the only way to get it passed. Since they are also allowed special privileges in other areas, there is already precedent.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 10:50 PM
I dont see a way he can win this, it will get dropped before the election.

I do see it as a cost effective way to save money on healthcare and I do believe that is the main purpose of this proposition, it just wasnt well thought out.
I suppose they could allow the Church special privileges and let them opt out. That would be the only way to get it passed. Since they are also allowed special privileges in other areas, there is already precedent.

That is all the Church asked for. They just wanted an exemption but the Obama Administration decided to make a point and specifically tell them they would not be getting one. And now you have a VERY pissed off Church.

chiefforlife
02-06-2012, 11:01 PM
I'll be watching this one much closer now.

ClevelandBronco
02-06-2012, 11:15 PM
Nope, such a thing would swiftly be condemned as immoral, on par with selective abortion to get rid of girls in a family that wants a boy. Not illegal, but immoral, and no one is going to agree with funding selective female abortion.

The flaw in your argument is that you are conceding that people are born gay. I do agree with that, but most religious conservatives impulsively refuse to believe in that, because once you accept that people can be born gay, it opens up a whole new can of worms. (worm #1 being, why would God condemn homosexuality to be a sin, then create homosexuals? Answer: Either the bible is wrong, or God is a non-existent fairy tale)

There's a third possibility. God does not condemn the homosexuals that He has created, nor does the Bible say that He does.

AustinChief
02-06-2012, 11:46 PM
Just to put this in perspective. Seton Hospital in Austin has 12,000+ employees. Let's say they choose NOT to pay for insurance at all... because it MUST cover ELLA (a drug that is clearly an abortifacient, there really is no way around it on this one). So they chose not to pay, they will be fined $24 million per year to offset the cost of the govt providing the coverage that includes abortifacients. So basically, they will be forced to pay for it either way.

It would be one thing if 99.99% of America believed in abortion... but since the issue hovers around 50% every year.. it seems heavy handed to FORCE the issue on people with a mandate from Obama. Doesn't seem like democracy to me.

just to be clear, I personally have ZERO issue with abortifacients used in the first trimester .. and of course these are used in the first week. But I am not such an arrogant prick that I think I have the right to force my beliefs on the large chunk of the population who don't agree with me.

orange
02-07-2012, 12:16 AM
Just to put this in perspective. Seton Hospital in Austin has 12,000+ employees. Let's say they choose NOT to pay for insurance at all... because it MUST cover ELLA (a drug that is clearly an abortifacient, there really is no way around it on this one). So they chose not to pay, they will be fined $24 million per year to offset the cost of the govt providing the coverage that includes abortifacients. So basically, they will be forced to pay for it either way.


A very interesting example you chose. What about Seton Hospital? This:

Seton says it can't operate clinic for high-risk pregnant women at hospital because of Catholic teachings

Central Health board agrees to take over $2 million clinic but promises to make it "cost neutral.From the WebBy Mary Ann Roser
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Updated: 12:05 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 19, 2010

Published: 10:42 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2010

The Seton Family of Hospitals plans to stop operating a clinic for women with high-risk pregnancies because providing birth control services to new mothers would be in conflict with the Catholic Church.

Seton has asked Central Health, a taxing authority that owns the public University Medical Center Brackenridge, to take over the clinic, which is on the hospital campus and receives 14,000 low-income patient visits a year, according to Christie Garbe, a spokeswoman for Central Health. Seton operates the hospital for Central Health on a long-term lease.

The Central Health board Wednesday evening approved the changeover, expected to occur by Oct. 1, without debate.

Seton made the move so it does not run afoul of the Catholic Church's Ethical and Religious Directives, said Greg Hartman, president and CEO of the University Medical Center Brackenridge.

Whether the clinic currently provides birth control depends on whom you ask. Seton officials say family planning services have not been provided at the clinic; Central Health and those at its CommUnityCare organization, which will operate the clinic, said they understood those services were provided at the clinic.

"They were providing the full range of services you would get in a high-risk OB (obstetrical) clinic," said Stacy Wilson, director of governmental affairs for Central Health, formerly the Travis County Healthcare District.

Kate Henderson, chief operating officer of University Medical Center Brackenridge, said physician residents who train in the clinic are now affiliated with a Seton-owned medical practice, and to be properly trained in the spectrum of women's health services, they will want to offer birth control at the clinic. Seton determined that to avoid violating Catholic Church religious directives, residents could not write birth control prescriptions or implant IUDs, or intrauterine devices, to prevent pregnancy, Henderson said.

So, Henderson said, their residency cannot be sponsored by Seton when they work in the clinic.

Instead, during those times, they will be credentialed providers of CommUnityCare — which operates all of Central Health's clinics — said Dr. David Vander Straten, the clinics' chief medical officer. In addition, 30 to 40 Seton nurses, aides and clerical workers at the clinic will become CommUnityCare employees.

read more: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/seton-says-it-cant-operate-clinic-for-high-867406.html

Just like they WON'T BE AFFILIATED with the third-party they hire to provide their employees' health insurance.

Case Study: Conflict and Compromise (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2886734/)
The Model: A Creative Solution for Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Services in Secular/Catholic Hospital Partnerships (http://www.mergerwatch.org/storage/pdf-files/CarveOut-Solutions-11-1-10%20newlogo.pdf)

QED

AustinChief
02-07-2012, 12:35 AM
A very interesting example you chose. What about Seton Hospital? This:

Seton says it can't operate clinic for high-risk pregnant women at hospital because of Catholic teachings

Central Health board agrees to take over $2 million clinic but promises to make it "cost neutral.From the WebBy Mary Ann Roser
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Updated: 12:05 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 19, 2010

Published: 10:42 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2010

The Seton Family of Hospitals plans to stop operating a clinic for women with high-risk pregnancies because providing birth control services to new mothers would be in conflict with the Catholic Church.

Seton has asked Central Health, a taxing authority that owns the public University Medical Center Brackenridge, to take over the clinic, which is on the hospital campus and receives 14,000 low-income patient visits a year, according to Christie Garbe, a spokeswoman for Central Health. Seton operates the hospital for Central Health on a long-term lease.

The Central Health board Wednesday evening approved the changeover, expected to occur by Oct. 1, without debate.

Seton made the move so it does not run afoul of the Catholic Church's Ethical and Religious Directives, said Greg Hartman, president and CEO of the University Medical Center Brackenridge.

Whether the clinic currently provides birth control depends on whom you ask. Seton officials say family planning services have not been provided at the clinic; Central Health and those at its CommUnityCare organization, which will operate the clinic, said they understood those services were provided at the clinic.

"They were providing the full range of services you would get in a high-risk OB (obstetrical) clinic," said Stacy Wilson, director of governmental affairs for Central Health, formerly the Travis County Healthcare District.

Kate Henderson, chief operating officer of University Medical Center Brackenridge, said physician residents who train in the clinic are now affiliated with a Seton-owned medical practice, and to be properly trained in the spectrum of women's health services, they will want to offer birth control at the clinic. Seton determined that to avoid violating Catholic Church religious directives, residents could not write birth control prescriptions or implant IUDs, or intrauterine devices, to prevent pregnancy, Henderson said.

So, Henderson said, their residency cannot be sponsored by Seton when they work in the clinic.

Instead, during those times, they will be credentialed providers of CommUnityCare — which operates all of Central Health's clinics — said Dr. David Vander Straten, the clinics' chief medical officer. In addition, 30 to 40 Seton nurses, aides and clerical workers at the clinic will become CommUnityCare employees.

read more: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/seton-says-it-cant-operate-clinic-for-high-867406.html

Just like they WON'T BE AFFILIATED with the third-party they hire to provide their employees' health insurance.

QED

Wow, random! I just chose them because they are local. This stuff is completely unrelated though. I don't think you understand what happened here. Seton STOPPED running the clinic and completely passed it off to another provider. It's only "affiliation" is a loose one because they now lease the building from the Seton system. Otherwise, all personnel are NOT employees or affiliated with Seton. So in other words, this SUPPORTS my point. (It's actually MUCH more complicated because it all stems from them buying the last non-christian hospital in town.. so it was a complex issue that we can start a different thread on, but it has almost no bearing on this)

Simply put, they stopped supporting/funding/staffing the clinic because they provided service contrary to the Church. Same reason they don't want to fund an insurance plan that would do the same.

If you want to debate this.. you should really start at the beginning of the thread and address my earlier points. Though I seriously find it hard to believe that you support this nonsense.

Phobia
02-07-2012, 02:15 AM
If I were running for President the first thing I would promise is to put a mild, natural birth control in the water and every other beverage source in America. Individuals wishing to have a child would have to apply for a procreation license at which time after completion of parenting courses and demonstration of financial viability, they would be issued the anecdote.

I would win with or without the Catholic vote - on that issue alone.

stevieray
02-07-2012, 02:52 AM
If I were running for President the first thing I would promise is to put a mild, natural birth control in the water and every other beverage source in America. Individuals wishing to have a child would have to apply for a procreation license at which time after completion of parenting courses and demonstration of financial viability, they would be issued the anecdote.

I would win with or without the Catholic vote - on that issue alone.

are you being serious?

orange
02-07-2012, 03:28 AM
Wow, random! I just chose them because they are local. This stuff is completely unrelated though. I don't think you understand what happened here. Seton STOPPED running the clinic and completely passed it off to another provider. It's only "affiliation" is a loose one because they now lease the building from the Seton system. Otherwise, all personnel are NOT employees or affiliated with Seton. So in other words, this SUPPORTS my point. (It's actually MUCH more complicated because it all stems from them buying the last non-christian hospital in town.. so it was a complex issue that we can start a different thread on, but it has almost no bearing on this)

Simply put, they stopped supporting/funding/staffing the clinic because they provided service contrary to the Church. Same reason they don't want to fund an insurance plan that would do the same.

No, you're just plain wrong. Seton still runs the hospital - in fact, they're talking about replacing it with a new building - with taxpayer money, of course ("Seton’s parent company, Ascension Health, expects to share the cost of a new hospital, but wants to accomplish the project through a public-private partnership. The typical cost for a new hospital is about $1 million per bed, so the cost of a 250-bed teaching hospital could easily surpass $250 million." http://www.bizjournals.com/mobile/austin/print-edition/2011/07/22/seton-mulls-replacing-brackenridge.html?page=all) It's funny how that kind of association with contraception-users and government doesn't seem to compromise their "ethics."

They simply created a "hospital within a hospital" run by a third party that operates the clinic. And Seton hospital employees work in that clinic, providing the services the Church won't let Seton handle itself (read the underlined portion above). In further fact, they had to rebate back the money to the city to operate the clinic and make it revenue neutral because they otherwise would have been violating their contract to provide full services.

Both of those later links - the case study about Seton and the "hospital within a hospital" model based on Seton - talk about it at great length. More about "hospital within a hospital," in this case Louisville http://www.wfpl.org/2011/07/21/hospital-within-a-hospital-possible-solution-for-healthcare-merger-concerns/; Hartford http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-op-rennie-hospitals-merge-for-survival-1127-20111127,0,1104487.column; Milwaukee http://catholicexchange.com/2001/11/09/89192/.

Exactly what they could do with their health plan - let a third party handle it.

If you want to debate this.. you should really start at the beginning of the thread and address my earlier points. Though I seriously find it hard to believe that you support this nonsense.

No, I already dealt with this at length in the previous thread; you can read that if you like. But it came down to me saying exactly the same thing - let a third party handle it. It's just a bolt out of the blue that you happened to pick out a PERFECT EXAMPLE of a Catholic employer doing JUST THAT.


[edit] From that Hartford link:

Waterbury Hospital's finances have also deteriorated so the two rivals will be combined in a new $400 million facility. The new hospital will be for-profit, only the second one in the state. The flexibility of Roman Catholic doctrine allowed the new institution to avoid the thorny political issue of abortion and reproductive health procedures. A combined hospital in Waterbury that did not provide those services would have raised enough opposition to the merger from interest groups, public officials and regulators to have killed the deal.

The 300-bed facility will include a "hospital-within-a-hospital." A separate entity will be established within the 700,000-square-foot building that will perform procedures that Roman Catholic hospitals do not. It is the price of peace and getting out from under tens of millions in unfunded pension liabilities.


"for-profit" "flexibility of Roman Catholic doctrine" LMAO

Coudn't have said it better!

AustinChief
02-07-2012, 04:11 AM
No, you're just plain wrong. Seton still runs the hospital - in fact, they're talking about replacing it with a new building - with taxpayer money, of course ("Seton’s parent company, Ascension Health, expects to share the cost of a new hospital, but wants to accomplish the project through a public-private partnership. The typical cost for a new hospital is about $1 million per bed, so the cost of a 250-bed teaching hospital could easily surpass $250 million." http://www.bizjournals.com/mobile/austin/print-edition/2011/07/22/seton-mulls-replacing-brackenridge.html?page=all) It's funny how that kind of association with contraception-users doesn't seem to compromise their "ethics."

They simply created a "hospital within a hospital" run by a third party that operates the clinic. And Seton hospital employees work in that clinic, providing the services the Church won't let Seton handle itself (read the underlined portion above). In further fact, they had to rebate back the money to the city to operate the clinic and make it revenue neutral because they otherwise would have been violating their contract to provide full services.

Both of those later links - the case study about Seton and the "hospital within a hospital" model based on Seton - talk about it at great length. More about "hospital within a hospital," in this case Louisville: http://www.wfpl.org/2011/07/21/hospital-within-a-hospital-possible-solution-for-healthcare-merger-concerns/.

Exactly what they could do with their health plan - let a third party handle it.



No, I already dealt with this at length in the previous thread; you can read that if you like. But it came down to me saying exactly the same thing - let a third party handle it. It's just a bolt out of the blue that you happened to pick out a PERFECT EXAMPLE of a Catholic employer doing JUST THAT.

Don't tell me I'm wrong about a hospital that I live TWO BLOCKS FROM. Jesus you are a piece of work. I have dozens of friends who work there, I think I may know more about it than you.

You are mixing and matching articles about totally separate things. There was a clinic and there is a "hospital in a hospital" (two seperate things entirely) all of which has actually changed significantly since those articles you are quoting. As I said, this is COMPLETELY off topic. It is an interesting issue, one which was discussed ad naseum in Austin.. but has nothing to do with what YOU THINK it does. (Seton is a hospital SYSTEM here in town, not just one campus)

Regardless, you are dancing around the actual issue without addressing anything significant. Your attempt to say it is all ok because it is a third party is just flat out WRONG.

#1 This is not the Church PAYING for services.. they split those services off and DO NOT PAY FOR THEM specifically because they violate Church policy

#2 An insurance mandate IS the Church having to pay for services that violate Church doctrine. Your bullshit argument about "letting a third party handle it" is rubbish. Do you honestly think that makes it all "ok" morally with the Church just because you added a layer that the funds have to pass through? (hint: it doesn't)

It is unfathomable that you can't grasp that. Now, can you address my first example. Would YOU be ok with the Federal govt forcing you (or your employer) to pay for a contraceptive / abortifacient that selective targeted gays?

AustinChief
02-07-2012, 04:20 AM
"for-profit" "flexibility of Roman Catholic doctrine" LMAO

Coudn't have said it better!

Are you truly this ignorant or just that hateful?

#1 you have almost zero clue on these situations and are clearly getting your information by googling it and trying to comprehend based on various briefs.

#2 you are woefully ignorant of the Catholic Church.

#3 you once again have not proven a SINGLE thing that applies to THIS topic.

No matter how much you TRY to shove the round peg in the square hole.. it DOESN'T fit.

I'll make it even clearer for you. YOU don;t get to decide what is ok or isn't ok according to Catholic Doctrine. This is not a political stunt by the Church (they voted 55/45 for Obama) .. this follows a LONG HELD policy of the Church NOT allowing contraceptives / abortifacients to be covered under their health plans. I can follow you down the rabbit hole regarding hospitals and the complexities of women's health issues there... but what is the point? It does NOT bear on this issue AT ALL.

orange
02-07-2012, 04:26 AM
SETON BRACKENRIDGE

orange
02-07-2012, 04:27 AM
NOT SETON BRACKENRIDGE

orange
02-07-2012, 04:36 AM
You are mixing and matching articles about totally separate things. There was a clinic and there is a "hospital in a hospital" (two seperate things entirely) all of which has actually changed significantly since those articles you are quoting.

The first article I posted was August 2010. The bizjournal article is ~July 2011. The world has turned upside-down since then?

#1 This is not the Church PAYING for services.. they split those services off and DO NOT PAY FOR THEM specifically because they violate Church policy.

They had to rebate the money the fifth floor "hospital-within-a-hospital"-clinic-or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it costs because they were unable to perform the services they contracted to provide AFTER A CRACKDOWN by the Church hierarchy around 1999-2000.


#2 An insurance mandate IS the Church having to pay for services that violate Church doctrine. Your bullshit argument about "letting a third party handle it" is rubbish. Do you honestly think that makes it all "ok" morally with the Church just because you added a layer that the funds have to pass through? (hint: it doesn't)

Yes, it does. As I have clearly demonstrated. Whenever they want TAXPAYER MONEY, they can find an accommodation. But if they just can't bring themselves to do it, they can always pay the $2000/employee.

....

And as for your "abortigaycient" - why on earth would anyone answer such a ridiculous question? Nobody is making anything like that, nobody is researching it, nobody sane is advocating it. What point are you trying to make? How about THIS moral dilemma - suppose you religiously, fervantly believe that black people are subhuman or cursed or something - but the law requires you to serve them at your lunch counter. Do you do it?

AustinChief
02-07-2012, 04:47 AM
The first article I posted was August 2010. The bizjournal article is ~July 2011. The world has turned upside-down since then?


no, some of the articles are referencing other facts/articles that are older. Again, you really don't know what a shitstorm and how complex the whole thing was. It was a big deal for the last DECADE in Austin


They had to rebate the money the fifth floor "hospital-within-a-hospital"-clinic-or-whatever-you-want-to-call-it costs because they were unable to perform the services they contracted to provide AFTER A CRACKDOWN by the Church hierarchy around 1999-2000.

again, that is not exactly what happened... actually it isn't really close. but the point remains, they took (in this part of the equation) a floor and basically gave it to a separate provider to use, with their own employees and cost structure


Yes, it does. As I have clearly demonstrated. Whenever they want TAXPAYER MONEY, they can find an accommodation.


THIS proves that you have no clue what is going on with Brack. They took over Brack because it was on the verge of collapse. It is a money pit. No one wanted it and they could absorb the costs.


But if they just can't bring themselves to do it, they can always pay the $2000/employee.

Then just pay the $2000 dollars/employee.

So basically it's perfectly ok for them to be FINED (assessed or whatever you want to call it) because they won't go along with a policy change that they have RELIGIOUS objections to. Don't pretend this is a new policy, they currently don't pay for these things.

Which brings us around to my ORIGINAL question that you keep avoiding and instead focusing on off-topic garbage. Would YOU be ok with a Federal mandate forcing YOU to pay for a plan that included selectively anti-gay drugs? (I'm assuming an anti-gay drug would violate YOUR sense of morality.. obviously this doesn't work if you hate gay people)

orange
02-07-2012, 04:52 AM
Which brings us around to my ORIGINAL question that you keep avoiding and instead focusing on off-topic garbage. Would YOU be ok with a Federal mandate forcing YOU to pay for a plan that included selectively anti-gay drugs? (I'm assuming an anti-gay drug would violate YOUR sense of morality.. obviously this doesn't work if you hate gay people)

Your question is off-topic garbage, but I'll repeat:

And as for your "abortigaycient" - why on earth would anyone answer such a ridiculous question? Nobody is making anything like that, nobody is researching it, nobody sane is advocating it. What point are you trying to make? How about THIS moral dilemma - suppose you religiously, fervantly believe that black people are subhuman or cursed or something - but the law requires you to serve them at your lunch counter. Do you do it?

You could even do yourself one better and posit a real abortion dilemma - what about an abortifacient that destroyed severely deformed zygotes? Would I favor it being available? Yes - but then again, I favor ordinary day-after contraception being available, too. And also the pill, which doesn't abort anything at all, but which Catholic bishops maintain is going to send you to Hell.

AustinChief
02-07-2012, 04:58 AM
Your question is off-topic garbage, but I'll repeat:

And as for your "abortigaycient" - why on earth would anyone answer such a ridiculous question? Nobody is making anything like that, nobody is researching it, nobody sane is advocating it. What point are you trying to make? How about THIS moral dilemma - suppose you religiously, fervantly believe that black people are subhuman or cursed or something - but the law requires you to serve them at your lunch counter. Do you do it?

Ok I like the term abortigaycient! You would answer it because it is a a moral equivalency. Yes I understand it is hypothetical, that is how logic works some times.

I will play along and answer YOUR question once you answer mine. (even though your question is even further off topic whereas mine directly relates to the issue at hand)

Let's just say you have answered that NO you wouldn't support it, you'd say the Federal government has no right to mandate something so repulsive to you. Do you not see how that is a hypocritical stance? It isn't like the Church is in the minority here. No matter what poll you quote, the numbers come out to near 50% on support among Americans for abortion. (Though I disagree with forcing contraceptives as well, let's just focus on the GLARING issue for now.) I am not talking about something so FAR off the mainstream that it is a whacky religious stance (like your racist one). This is a fairly mainstream issue with the nation pretty evenly split.

How about this, do you think Obama can AFFORD to alienate 74 million Americans? And yes I ran the numbers and in all honesty there are a good 10 million votes he stands to LOSE over this issue if the Supreme Court doesn't get to it first. It's arrogant and idiotic for HHS to have this stance and it will come back to bite them in the ass.. as it should.

orange
02-07-2012, 05:02 AM
Ok I like the term abortigaycient! You would answer it because it is a a moral equivalency. Yes I understand it is hypothetical, that is how logic works some times.

I will play along and answer YOUR question once you answer mine. (even though your question is even further off topic whereas mine directly relates to the issue at hand)

How about this - I do not favor abortion based on traits of any kind, by any method. But I favor women having the choice and not me. And contraception is by far preferable to abortion in any case - even if it's the day after.

Also, the government isn't mandating anyone ever use or pay for contraception. They are mandating health insurance, and they are mandating that health insurance cover that, but NO ONE is being required to use it (the contraception coverage). And no employer should ever know whether any of their employees are using it. They are really totally out of the decision, and bear no guilt one way or the other.

AustinChief
02-07-2012, 05:11 AM
How about this - I do not favor abortion based on traits of any kind, by any method. But I favor women having the choice and not me. And contraception is by far preferable to abortion in any case - even if it's the day after.

Also, the government isn't mandating anyone ever use or pay for contraception. They are mandating health insurance, and they are mandating that health insurance cover that, but NO ONE is being required to use it (the contraception coverage). And no employer should ever know whether any of their employees are using it. They are really totally out of the decision, and bear no guilt one way or the other.

Here is where you are fundamentally wrong. They ARE forcing the Church to pay for it. Period.

btw my personal beliefs on abortion are probably fairly close to yours, they definitely aren't in line with the Church at all. I am just disgusted by the idea that it is the RIGHT of the Federal government to force this crap on them.

On a separate note, there really is NO NEED for any of this to be covered by insurance. It is already cheap-as-free. Covering it by insurance has ZERO correlation to general usage. No one is actually skipping the Pill because they can't afford it. (not really on topic, but it's just funny that people think otherwise)

orange
02-07-2012, 05:33 AM
So basically it's perfectly ok for them to be FINED (assessed or whatever you want to call it) because they won't go along with a policy change that they have RELIGIOUS objections to. Don't pretend this is a new policy, they currently don't pay for these things.

Penalty $2000/employee/year = $166.67/employee/month

We’re glad to present you today with what may be the best available answer to that question – at least when it comes to individual and family health insurance products in the United States. Today eHealthInsurance released its big ‘Cost & Benefits of Individual and Family Health Insurance Plans’ report for 2011.

The answer, briefly: On average nationwide, health insurance costs $183 per month for individuals and $414 per month for families.

http://blog.ehealthinsurance.com/2011/11/how-much-does-health-insurance-cost-in-2011/

BucEyedPea
02-07-2012, 10:57 AM
How many exemptions has Obama granted on his HC bill?

HonestChieffan
02-07-2012, 11:00 AM
I see this mushrooming if they keep riding this deal...
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290276/were-all-catholics-now-david-french

We’re All Catholics Now
By David French
February 6, 2012 3:43 P.M. Comments88
I’m not the first to comment on the Obama administration’s breathtaking assault on religious liberty, I won’t be the last, and I’m certainly not the most eloquent. I am, however, a lawyer prepared to do something about it. At issue are two competing visions of religion in American public life. For the Obama administration — beginning with its stance that federal employment laws trumped even a religious organization’s selection of its own ministers and now extending to dictating that religious employers must violate their deepest beliefs as a precondition for maintaining their core religious mission — has decided that religion is nothing special, really. It’s nothing more than perhaps just one competing business philosophy — some businesses read Good to Great, others read the Bible, and some read both. In any case, all are subject to the benevolent embrace of the all-ecompassing state.

The opposing view looks back to the Mayflower and to a past immeasurably enriched by the most robust, tolerant, and vibrant religious expression in the developed world and realizes the essential importance of our nation’s “first liberty” — religious freedom. We are who we are in large part because of our respective denominations and faiths. Indeed, “the better angels of our nature” (to borrow from Lincoln) have again and again sprung from our faith communities — from the indispensable role churches played in the Revolution, to the abolitionist movement, to our struggle against fascism, to the fight for civil rights, and to the present, world-leading philanthropy of American citizens.

If our courts — and our citizens at the ballot box — choose the Obama administration’s view, then the Europeanization of America may well become irresistible. As the Obama administration assaults our nation’s great Catholic institutions, it’s time for the church universal — the holy catholic church — to unite. Do we not all value our liberties? Do we believe that the state can love its citizens better than Christ operating through His followers? And for our nation’s Protestants, are we so wedded to our distinctions from our Catholic brothers and sisters that we’ll fail to rally to their aid much less closely examine our own apparent willingness to quietly cover and fund abortifacients?

It is times like this when the words of our creeds matter. We are, in fact, part of the “holy catholic church.” We are one Body. The Obama administration should and must face a completely and firmly united American Christian community. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, we’re all Catholics now.

orange
02-07-2012, 11:24 AM
I see this mushrooming if they keep riding this deal...
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290276/were-all-catholics-now-david-french

OH MY GOD!! Obama's lost David French - founder of Evangelicals For Romney!!! GAMECHANGER!!!!

HonestChieffan
02-07-2012, 11:33 AM
OH MY GOD!! Obama's lost David French - founder of Evangelicals For Romney!!! GAMECHANGER!!!!


No idea who French is, but I do think he makes a valid point that this move is not a Catholic Church only issue and that we could see a wider base of opposition to this sort of move by government.

HonestChieffan
02-07-2012, 11:42 AM
Come to think of it, this is pretty amazing.Obama may have actually brought Lutherans and Catholics together.

orange
02-07-2012, 11:44 AM
http://www.portervillepost.com/pics/opt-out-day-470.jpg

orange
02-07-2012, 01:01 PM
Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen Executive, Quits Over Planned Parenthood Dispute

Posted: 2/7/12 | Updated: 2/7/12

Karen Handel, vice president for public affairs at Susan G. Komen for the Cure, resigned on Tuesday following public outcry over the announcement Komen would pull funding from Planned Parenthood. After Komen reversed its decision, The Huffington Post reported that Handel drove the decision to defund Planned Parenthood over abortion politics and crafted the strategy to clean up the public relations mess that ensued.

read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/karen-handel-quits-susan-g-komen_n_1259835.html

patteeu
02-07-2012, 01:03 PM
Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen Executive, Quits Over Planned Parenthood Dispute

Posted: 2/7/12 | Updated: 2/7/12

Karen Handel, vice president for public affairs at Susan G. Komen for the Cure, resigned on Tuesday following public outcry over the announcement Komen would pull funding from Planned Parenthood. After Komen reversed its decision, The Huffington Post reported that Handel drove the decision to defund Planned Parenthood over abortion politics and crafted the strategy to clean up the public relations mess that ensued.

read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/karen-handel-quits-susan-g-komen_n_1259835.html

The mafia has nothing on Planned Parenthood when it comes to shaking someone down.

orange
02-07-2012, 01:08 PM
The mafia has nothing on Planned Parenthood when it comes to shaking someone down.

"Stunned by the fallout, Komen leadership decided within three days to reverse the Planned Parenthood decision and apologize. But the Komen insider said Handel was furious about the cave and fought against it up until the point that it was announced Friday morning.

"It became clear Thursday night that something had to give," the source said. "Nancy Brinker, Liz Thompson, the board, and leadership were saying, 'We're really worried about Komen's mission if we don't figure this out.' But Karen was still arguing against it as of Friday morning -- she was horrified that we were caving, she said. She's politically tone-deaf.""

Mittens should give her a job in his campaign.

orange
02-07-2012, 01:43 PM
Obama poised to lose the Catholic White Evangelical vote

http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BC-Employers-Religion1-e1328631576475.png

http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/

whoman69
02-07-2012, 01:55 PM
Insurance is supposed to be for medical conditions of a serious nature. Not for women to use it on contraception. This is another reason why medical costs and taxes to pay medical costs are ever increasing.

Its not the only reason medical costs increasing. Costs are also increasing because the current system lacks inducements for preventative medicine. Its certainly cheaper to cover contraceptives than to cover the costs of a pregnancy.

whoman69
02-07-2012, 01:58 PM
"Stunned by the fallout, Komen leadership decided within three days to reverse the Planned Parenthood decision and apologize. But the Komen insider said Handel was furious about the cave and fought against it up until the point that it was announced Friday morning.

"It became clear Thursday night that something had to give," the source said. "Nancy Brinker, Liz Thompson, the board, and leadership were saying, 'We're really worried about Komen's mission if we don't figure this out.' But Karen was still arguing against it as of Friday morning -- she was horrified that we were caving, she said. She's politically tone-deaf.""

Mittens should give her a job in his campaign.

If she's politically tone-deaf then she shouldn't have followed political pressure to get away from Planned Parenthood anyway. Those provided money for them to give thousands of women mamograms. That is what Komen is all about.

whoman69
02-07-2012, 02:05 PM
The mafia has nothing on Planned Parenthood when it comes to shaking someone down.

Hyperbole in light of clinics being bombed, doctors being shot, and protesters harrassing people who may or may not even be considering abortions. Hyperbole in the light of how the right has made Planned Parenthood's only mission to be abortions. Hyperbole when facing that the Onion posted an article about an "abortion factory" going up and the religious right took the bait and quoted the "serious" article.

So what sort of deal does Planned Parenthood have that nobody can refuse?

vailpass
02-07-2012, 02:37 PM
Hyperbole in light of clinics being bombed, doctors being shot, and protesters harrassing people who may or may not even be considering abortions. Hyperbole in the light of how the right has made Planned Parenthood's only mission to be abortions. Hyperbole when facing that the Onion posted an article about an "abortion factory" going up and the religious right took the bait and quoted the "serious" article.

So what sort of deal does Planned Parenthood have that nobody can refuse?

Talking points are so enlightening.

whoman69
02-07-2012, 02:38 PM
Talking points are so enlightening.

How about hyperbole.

vailpass
02-07-2012, 02:39 PM
How about hyperbole.

Such as "Bombed out doctors that got shot and Planned Parenthood isn't about abortion"?

patteeu
02-07-2012, 03:00 PM
Obama poised to lose the Catholic White Evangelical vote

http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BC-Employers-Religion1-e1328631576475.png

http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/

I think the RCC clergy can move those numbers if they're really willing to push the issue. If this bishop's letter is a one time thing, then maybe not so much. People are sheep to a large degree and Catholics aren't that different than other strains of sheep. They can be shepherded.

HonestChieffan
02-07-2012, 03:03 PM
I think the RCC clergy can move those numbers if they're really willing to push the issue. If this bishop's letter is a one time thing, then maybe not so much. People are sheep to a large degree and Catholics aren't that different than other strains of sheep. They can be shepherded.



Naw. I think Orange has put this to rest.

vailpass
02-07-2012, 03:08 PM
Obama poised to lose the Catholic White Evangelical vote

http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BC-Employers-Religion1-e1328631576475.png

http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/

The issue isn't whether Catholics agree that insurance should include birth control.
The issue is that obama is cramming it down our throats and walking all over our rights as a religious institution in so doing.
If this continues obama will lose the vast majority of the Anglo Catholic vote as well as a large perecentage of the hispanic Catholic vote.

Chief Faithful
02-07-2012, 03:32 PM
Come to think of it, this is pretty amazing.Obama may have actually brought Lutherans and Catholics together.

If they continue to promote this as an assualt on religious liberty not just Catholic liberty it may bring together Protestants, Jews, Lutherans, Catholics and some Muslims.

patteeu
02-07-2012, 03:32 PM
Its not the only reason medical costs increasing. Costs are also increasing because the current system lacks inducements for preventative medicine. Its certainly cheaper to cover contraceptives than to cover the costs of a pregnancy.

1. When someone says "this is another reason why ..." they are explicitly acknowledging that it's not the only reason.

2. Preventative medicine can probably reduce costs in some cases, but it's almost certainly fewer cases than most preventative medicine advocates like yourself believe. It's easy to see how preventative care reduces costs in the cases where a person would have otherwise come down with a costly medical condition but it's harder to recognize how much is wasted by preventative care for people who would have never faced that condition anyway.

3. This isn't a good case for making the preventative care argument. We need more children overall. That's why we continue to absorb immigrants. The cost of having a child is more than made up for by the expected productivity of that child during his lifetime. Unwanted children might have social costs that can be prevented, but the medical costs aren't costs that we want to avoid.

patteeu
02-07-2012, 03:33 PM
Hyperbole in light of clinics being bombed, doctors being shot, and protesters harrassing people who may or may not even be considering abortions. Hyperbole in the light of how the right has made Planned Parenthood's only mission to be abortions. Hyperbole when facing that the Onion posted an article about an "abortion factory" going up and the religious right took the bait and quoted the "serious" article.

So what sort of deal does Planned Parenthood have that nobody can refuse?

Fund us or we'll destroy you.

jiveturkey
02-07-2012, 03:46 PM
The issue isn't whether Catholics agree that insurance should include birth control.
The issue is that obama is cramming it down our throats and walking all over our rights as a religious institution in so doing.
If this continues obama will lose the vast majority of the Anglo Catholic vote as well as a large perecentage of the hispanic Catholic vote.
I believe that at least half of the states currently have the same mandate.

The religious angle has not been an issue before.

AustinChief
02-07-2012, 03:51 PM
3. This isn't a good case for making the preventative care argument. We need more children overall. That's why we continue to absorb immigrants. The cost of having a child is more than made up for by the expected productivity of that child during his lifetime. Unwanted children might have social costs that can be prevented, but the medical costs aren't costs that we want to avoid.

True.. and people need to stop promulgating the assumption that free contraceptives equate to significantly fewer unwanted pregnancies. It simply isn't true. No one is not taking the Pill because they can't afford it. Period.

BucEyedPea
02-07-2012, 03:57 PM
I believe that at least half of the states currently have the same mandate.

The religious angle has not been an issue before.

States are allowed to do more than the Federal govt.

AustinChief
02-07-2012, 03:57 PM
I believe that at least half of the states currently have the same mandate.

The religious angle has not been an issue before.

#1 In those states, the Church doesn't HAVE to carry insurance or face steep fines.

#2 They also can choose to opt out of having their plan have prescription drug coverage entirely.

#3 Most states also have a Religious exemption

HUGE difference.

SLAG
02-07-2012, 04:01 PM
A few points I want to bring up.

1- The Obama Admin. has allowed exemptions for Quakers and Amish - Why not the Catholics?

2- Birth Control has been linked to Breast cancer - Take that at face value.

3- Here is an interesting blog post that satirizes the topic a bit:



The Obama Administration is celebrating the second anniversary of the controversial Let's Move! campaign to combat the rise in obesity in the United States. If you don't think it's controversial, you should.

Even a cursory glance at the many initiatives undertaken through the guidance of First Lady Michelle Obama should note a frightening trend: health education in America is not comprehensive. The Administration is so wrapped up in making healthy food choices and fitness that one could get the impression that a Discipline-Only approach to health education is the best approach to health education.

Has no one considered how focusing only on discipline and not all options to address obesity is misguided? Shouldn't a nation with such a diverse population with a plurality of views expect a federal campaign to at least mention all the options available? Are we going to be forced to live under a system that doesn't provide a comprehensive approach to "preventative services" when it comes to health?

Obesity is a very serious problem in the United States. Studies show that almost 10% of all health care costs are related to obesity. It is difficult to imagine a more serious threat to the health of our nation than obesity. Since that is the case, should the Federal Government really be so narrow-minded in its approach to educating the young about obesity? That's exactly what the Administration has chosen to do by embracing the stringent and old-fashioned Let's Move! campaign.

If we want to really take obesity seriously, we should look to a more comprehensive approach**. Such an approach could include, but shouldn't be limited to:

Greater availability of diet pills and other diuretics for young people and the poor
Free shots of insulin in all school vending machines
More affordable access to Lap-band Surgery and Liposuction
Sensitivity training about the positive contributions of eating disorders
Give people the option to execute unwanted obese children***


If we are going to take obesity seriously, we need to take a seriously comprehensive approach. It is close-minded to think that Discipline-Only Health Education is the best public policy. As long as we cling to regressive and unrealistic approaches to health, we have little hope for real change. Health Education is too grave a responsibility to pin our hopes on kids eating better and embracing exercise. Unless we start framing a comprehensive approach that values preventative services like diet pills and weight loss surgery, America will be stuck in our obese tracks

jiveturkey
02-07-2012, 04:01 PM
#1 In those states, the Church doesn't HAVE to carry insurance or face steep fines.

#2 They also can choose to opt out of having their plan have prescription drug coverage entirely.

#3 Most states also have a Religious exemption

HUGE difference.Huge difference indeed. Thanks for the clarification.

AustinChief
02-07-2012, 05:25 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4zST9p4CYtY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That crazy right wing Mark Shields!

dirk digler
02-07-2012, 05:47 PM
This is an interesting debate but I don't think it will have a huge impact especially since it has come to light that 28 states already mandate coverage of contraception including Massachusetts when Romney was Governor.

Plus:

Similarly, an informal survey (http://www.projectsycamore.com/media/images/bulletins/111020/OSVins.pdf) conducted by Our Sunday Visitor found that many Catholic colleges have purchased insurance plans that provide contraception benefits:
University of Scranton, for example, appears to specifically cover contraception. The University of San Francisco offers employees two health plans, both of which cover abortion, contraception and sterilization…Also problematic is the Jesuit University of Scranton. One of its health insurance plans, the First Priority HMO, lists a benefit of “contraceptives when used for the purpose of birth control.”
DePaul University in Chicago covers birth control in both its fully insured HMO plan and its self-insured PPO plan and excludes “elective abortion,” said spokesman John Holden, adding that the 1,800 employee-university responded to a complaint from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission several years ago and added artificial contraception as a benefit to its Blue Cross PPO.
Christian Brothers University in Memphis, Tenn., offers employee health insurance via the Tennessee Independent Colleges and Universities Association, a consortium of Christian Bible and other private college and universities. Its plan excludes abortion, but probably covers artificial contraception as a prescription drug, said C. Gregg Conroy, the executive director of the TICUA Benefit Consortium.
Boston College (http://www.thebcobserver.com/2009/10/06/bc-health-insurance-covers-birth-control/), the six former Caritas Christi Catholic hospitals (http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-03/nation/31017576_1_catholic-hospitals-emergency-contraception-religious-liberty/3) in Massachusetts, and other Catholic organizations that are located in one of the 28 states that already require employers to provide contraception benefits could have self-insured or stopped offering prescription drug coverage to avoid the mandate — but didn’t do so. Instead, they — like many Catholic hospitals and health care insurers around the country — chose to meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of Catholic women and offer these much needed services.

AustinChief
02-07-2012, 06:05 PM
This is an interesting debate but I don't think it will have a huge impact especially since it has come to light that 28 states already mandate coverage of contraception including Massachusetts when Romney was Governor.

Plus:

Again, as I said. The states mandate that IF you carry insurance and IF you CHOOSE to cover prescription drugs and IF (in most states) you aren't a religious org. than you have to cover contraceptives.

The Federal mandate is that you MUST carry insurance and you MUST cover prescription drugs and you CAN NOT be exempted (in the case of the Catholic institutions)

Do you see now why it is a big deal?

As to the Catholic organizations that have slipped up and not followed the Churches stance.. they are the outliers. They are going against the official stance... and that has no bearing on the right of the Federal govt to force the issue on the REST of the orgs. out there.

chiefforlife
02-07-2012, 06:16 PM
I saw a brief thing on CNN today that said Mr. Obama is willing to compromise. The Church will probably be able to opt out. That didnt take long. I think it was an oversight more than anything.

AustinChief
02-07-2012, 06:23 PM
I saw a brief thing on CNN today that said Mr. Obama is willing to compromise. The Church will probably be able to opt out. That didnt take long. I think it was an oversight more than anything.

What bothers me is that the Church asked numerous times and was flat out denied... then after a month of growing outrage.. Obama (through Axelrod) says they will maybe sorta look at something that is ok with everyone... What a load of horseshit that they thought it was ok to try to force it though in the first place.

dirk digler
02-07-2012, 06:38 PM
Again, as I said. The states mandate that IF you carry insurance and IF you CHOOSE to cover prescription drugs and IF (in most states) you aren't a religious org. than you have to cover contraceptives.

The Federal mandate is that you MUST carry insurance and you MUST cover prescription drugs and you CAN NOT be exempted (in the case of the Catholic institutions)

Do you see now why it is a big deal?

As to the Catholic organizations that have slipped up and not followed the Churches stance.. they are the outliers. They are going against the official stance... and that has no bearing on the right of the Federal govt to force the issue on the REST of the orgs. out there.

Here is a comparison of the Federal mandate and Romneycare. I provide you decide.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/obama.3cdn.net/8c6e69278ef108f9d2_o09hmvhp7.pdf

AustinChief
02-07-2012, 07:00 PM
Here is a comparison of the Federal mandate and Romneycare. I provide you decide.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/obama.3cdn.net/8c6e69278ef108f9d2_o09hmvhp7.pdf

um, I am not a Romney supporter and I don't care for Romney care. Neither point has ANY bearing on this argument. There is a massive difference between a state mandate and a federal one. Both in terms of the law and in terms of scope. I agree that the Church SHOULD have also been more upset about Romneycare than it was, but that doesn't make ti WRONG for them to be upset now. Let's not try to make this a partisan thing, remember that Catholics voted 55/45 for Obama in 2008.

Cave Johnson
02-08-2012, 12:17 PM
I saw a brief thing on CNN today that said Mr. Obama is willing to compromise. The Church will probably be able to opt out. That didnt take long. I think it was an oversight more than anything.

If Obama was politically savvy (I have my doubts), he'd back down and simply make the pill available OTC at a low cost.

jiveturkey
02-08-2012, 12:23 PM
If Obama was politically savvy (I have my doubts), he'd back down and simply make the pill available OTC at a low cost.That's actually a much better idea.

My wife hasn't had to worry about the pill in a while but I remember it being pretty damn cheap several years ago.

Cave Johnson
02-08-2012, 12:24 PM
3. This isn't a good case for making the preventative care argument. We need more children overall. That's why we continue to absorb immigrants. The cost of having a child is more than made up for by the expected productivity of that child during his lifetime. Unwanted children might have social costs that can be prevented, but the medical costs aren't costs that we want to avoid.

a) Having another entitled Johnny or Suzy doesn't mean they'll grow up to pick crops, or clean hotels, or work in meatpacking, or any number of shit jobs American's don't want to do.

b) Each child imposes a $200K cost on parents. While your assertion that "cost of having a child is more than made up for by the expected productivity of that child during his lifetime" MIGHT be true, they sure as shit don't directly pay back the parents. And if the family can't afford to properly raise the child, then you run into a whole host of terrible outcomes and costs to the taxpayers (school lunches, welfare, the penal system, etc). All for your antiquated belief handed down from an "infallible" guy in a funny hat.

YourMom
02-08-2012, 12:27 PM
That Catholic guy was so pissed, you'd think someone told him he couldn't fuck little kids or something.

headsnap
02-08-2012, 12:34 PM
That Catholic guy was so pissed, you'd think someone told him he couldn't **** little kids or something.


I'm sure the Catholics would make an exception for you...









retroactively!!!!

vailpass
02-08-2012, 12:40 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4zST9p4CYtY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That crazy right wing Mark Shields!

Outstanding. The NPR shill was in way over her head.

Cave Johnson
02-08-2012, 12:50 PM
Outstanding. The NPR shill was in way over her head.

Leave Totes alone.

Seriously, she's SCOTUS reporter..... policy's not her wheelhouse.

vailpass
02-08-2012, 12:53 PM
Leave Totes alone.

Seriously, she's SCOTUS reporter..... policy's not her wheelhouse.

So it would appear. She was rhetorically bukaked.
Thanks for the heads-up, had no idea who she was.

patteeu
02-08-2012, 01:09 PM
a) Having another entitled Johnny or Suzy doesn't mean they'll grow up to pick crops, or clean hotels, or work in meatpacking, or any number of shit jobs American's don't want to do.

b) Each child imposes a $200K cost on parents. While your assertion that "cost of having a child is more than made up for by the expected productivity of that child during his lifetime" MIGHT be true, they sure as shit don't directly pay back the parents. And if the family can't afford to properly raise the child, then you run into a whole host of terrible outcomes and costs to the taxpayers (school lunches, welfare, the penal system, etc). All for your antiquated belief handed down from an "infallible" guy in a funny hat.

Abortion and contraception don't really qualify as preventive medicine except in very unusual cases. You're talking about potential social costs (which I mentioned in my post). If we're going to have a mandatory, universal coverage medical program, we shouldn't be using it for controversial social experimentation. It should be focused exclusively on health care.

Only an elitist (or maybe a racist) would think your first paragraph is relevant.

Cave Johnson
02-08-2012, 01:14 PM
Abortion and contraception don't really qualify as preventive medicine except in very unusual cases. You're talking about potential social costs (which I mentioned in my post). If we're going to have a mandatory, universal coverage medical program, we shouldn't be using it for controversial social experimentation. It should be focused exclusively on health care.

<i>Griswold v. Connecticut</i> has been the law of the land for 45 years. Only a RWNJ such as yourself considers it controversial.

patteeu
02-08-2012, 01:42 PM
<i>Griswold v. Connecticut</i> has been the law of the land for 45 years. Only a RWNJ such as yourself considers it controversial.

Are you conceding that abortion shouldn't be a part of standard Obamacare coverage or are you just ignoring it because your argument can't support it?

Cave Johnson
02-08-2012, 01:48 PM
Are you conceding that abortion shouldn't be a part of standard Obamacare coverage or are you just ignoring it because your argument can't support it?

Keep on topic, skippy. We're discussion contraception, not abortion.

patteeu
02-08-2012, 01:51 PM
Keep on topic, skippy. We're discussion contraception, not abortion.

No, we're discussing contraception, abortion, and sterilization.

Cave Johnson
02-08-2012, 02:06 PM
No, we're discussing contraception, abortion, and sterilization.

I'm discussing contraception, you're attempting to conflate it with abortion.

patteeu
02-08-2012, 02:10 PM
I'm discussing contraception, you're attempting to conflate it with abortion.

Do you concede that abortion shouldn't be covered by basic Obamacare mandated coverage?

jiveturkey
02-08-2012, 02:20 PM
Do you concede that abortion shouldn't be covered by basic Obamacare mandated coverage?I don't believe that it should.

Has it ever been covered by any type of insurance in the past?

patteeu
02-08-2012, 02:25 PM
I don't believe that it should.

Has it ever been covered by any type of insurance in the past?

I'm sure it has, but I don't know specifically. In this case, I don't know if we're talking about things like late term abortions though. The article only mentions abortion inducing drugs (as opposed to the mechanical procedures used later in pregnancies).

orange
02-08-2012, 03:04 PM
I'm sure it has, but I don't know specifically. In this case, I don't know if we're talking about things like late term abortions though. The article only mentions abortion inducing drugs (as opposed to the mechanical procedures used later in pregnancies).

There is no abortion coverage mandated. It's up to the private companies who offer the plans whether they include abortion.

Which 60% of private insurance plans DO already. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/abortion-care-coverage-health-care-reform-getting-facts-straight-29733.htm

This current issue is all about contraception, not abortion. Even "abortion inducing drugs" is a loaded misnomer. These drugs don't work that way.

patteeu
02-08-2012, 04:03 PM
There is no abortion coverage mandated. It's up to the private companies who offer the plans whether they include abortion.

Which 60% of private insurance plans DO already. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/abortion-care-coverage-health-care-reform-getting-facts-straight-29733.htm

This current issue is all about contraception, not abortion. Even "abortion inducing drugs" is a loaded misnomer. These drugs don't work that way.

You mean they don't work by ending the life of an embryo? How do they work?

orange
02-08-2012, 04:10 PM
You mean they don't work by ending the life of an embryo? How do they work?

Actual abortion drugs are not covered (I think). What's covered is emergency contraception, which acts by preventing fertilization.

How Does the Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception) Work? Two brands of the morning-after pill — Plan B One-Step and Next Choice — are made of one of the hormones found in birth control pills called progestin. Hormones are chemicals made in our bodies. They control how different parts of the body work.

The other brand of the morning-after pill — ella — is made of a medication called ulipristal acetate.

All brands of the morning-after pill work by keeping a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormone in the morning-after pill also prevents pregnancy by thickening a woman's cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.

The morning-after pill can also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

You might have also heard that the morning-after pill causes an abortion. But that's not true. The morning-after pill is not the abortion pill. Emergency contraception is birth control, not abortion.

And even these are barely covered by this rule; in most places they're available OTC without a prescription and are not covered by the rule.

No, this whole ruckus is about CONTRACEPTION - not abortion.

patteeu
02-08-2012, 04:12 PM
Actual abortion drugs are not covered (I think). What's covered is emergency contraception, which acts by preventing fertilization.

How Does the Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception) Work? Two brands of the morning-after pill — Plan B One-Step and Next Choice — are made of one of the hormones found in birth control pills called progestin. Hormones are chemicals made in our bodies. They control how different parts of the body work.

The other brand of the morning-after pill — ella — is made of a medication called ulipristal acetate.

All brands of the morning-after pill work by keeping a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs — ovulation. Pregnancy cannot happen if there is no egg to join with sperm. The hormone in the morning-after pill also prevents pregnancy by thickening a woman's cervical mucus. The mucus blocks sperm and keeps it from joining with an egg.

The morning-after pill can also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.

You might have also heard that the morning-after pill causes an abortion. But that's not true. The morning-after pill is not the abortion pill. Emergency contraception is birth control, not abortion.

And even these are barely covered by this rule; in most places they're available OTC without a prescription and are not covered by the rule.

No, this whole ruckus is about CONTRACEPTION - not abortion.

OK, thanks.

BucEyedPea
02-08-2012, 04:59 PM
No, this whole ruckus is about CONTRACEPTION - not abortion.

You do know they don't believe in such means of CONTRACEPTION either, do you?
You are telling what to believe essentially when you force this on them too. That's the REAL issue.

It's called the First Amendment!

Geesh! Try to minimize it because of your own value set. The tolerance and diversity of the left on display.

HonestChieffan
02-08-2012, 07:10 PM
This whole ruckus is about government dictating to religion

AustinChief
02-08-2012, 07:23 PM
Actual abortion drugs are not covered (I think). What's covered is emergency contraception, which acts by preventing fertilization.


And even these are barely covered by this rule; in most places they're available OTC without a prescription and are not covered by the rule.

No, this whole ruckus is about CONTRACEPTION - not abortion.

Wrong. Ella can be used as an abortion inducing drug. It is an abortifacient, plain and simple.

btw, the Catholic church (as do 50% of Americans) believes that life begins at conception. Hence, a drug that stops a fertilized egg from implanting is an abortifacient.

orange
02-08-2012, 08:33 PM
Wrong. Ella can be used as an abortion inducing drug. It is an abortifacient, plain and simple.

btw, the Catholic church (as do 50% of Americans) believes that life begins at conception. Hence, a drug that stops a fertilized egg from implanting is an abortifacient.

Except that it doesn't do that. It prevents ovulation. It may lead to failure to implant, but there's no significant evidence for that. And it's also hardly used. And, if I'm not mistaken, none of these Bishops or Bill Donohue has suggested they could sever Ella from the rule and it would be okay. Are YOU suggesting that would settle it?

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 08:38 PM
This whole ruckus is about government dictating to religion

Do you have a problem with the 28 states that dictate to religion?

HonestChieffan
02-08-2012, 08:48 PM
Do you have a problem with the 28 states that dictate to religion?

Explain what they dictate and what states

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 08:51 PM
Explain what they dictate and what states

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=8357343&postcount=147

AustinChief
02-08-2012, 09:03 PM
Except that it doesn't do that. It prevents ovulation. It may lead to failure to implant, but there's no significant evidence for that. And it's also hardly used. And, if I'm not mistaken, none of these Bishops or Bill Donohue has suggested they could sever Ella from the rule and it would be okay. Are YOU suggesting that would settle it?

No I'm not suggesting that at all. I am just setting the record straight. Ella is (by the Catholic standards) an abortifacient. Plan B is not(as far as I know).. but Ella is.

“While the FDA approved the drug application of Ella as an “emergency contraceptive,” this drug is known to be chemically and functionally similar to the abortifacient drug, RU-486. In a study published this month in the Annals of Pharmacotherapy, “the mechanism of action of ulipristal in human ovarian and endometrial tissue is identical to that of its parent compound, mifepristone.”

So, just to be clear... I think it would still be an issue if this drug was removed from the mandate... but the fact is, it is there.

AustinChief
02-08-2012, 09:05 PM
Do you have a problem with the 28 states that dictate to religion?

Only one state has a mandate that requires prescription care that includes contraception and doesn't allow a proper religious exemption. Don't throw out that 28 states garbage and expect people to swallow it whole.

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 09:10 PM
Only one state has a mandate that requires prescription care that includes contraception and doesn't allow a proper religious exemption. Don't throw out that 28 states garbage and expect people to swallow it whole.

What is your definition of proper religious exemption?

AustinChief
02-08-2012, 09:14 PM
What is your definition of proper religious exemption?

Allowing religious organizations to be exempt even if they employee persons of other religions.

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 09:18 PM
Allowing religious organizations to be exempt even if they employee persons of other religions.

That is pretty broad. For example in Arizona they can't be exempted unless the majority of their employees are of the same faith and the people they serve are primarily of the same faith. That would exclude all hospitals for sure.

AustinChief
02-08-2012, 09:21 PM
That is pretty broad. For example in Arizona they can't be exempted unless the majority of their employees are of the same faith and the people they serve are primarily of the same faith. That would exclude all hospitals for sure.

Yes, but in Arizona they are not required to offer health insurance. They could simply opt out entirely. Only Mass requires coverage a without a proper exemption (as far as I know, I need to research Romney Care more)

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 09:27 PM
Yes, but in Arizona they are not required to offer health insurance. They could simply opt out entirely. Only Mass requires coverage a without a proper exemption (as far as I know, I need to research Romney Care more)

True but if employers do offer insurance they have to meet the 3 standards Arizona has set.

Look at Georgia's bill they don't offer any exemptions..

§ 33-24-59.6. Prescribed female contraceptive drugs or devices; insurance coverage


(a) The General Assembly finds and declares that:

(1) Maternal and infant health are greatly improved when women have access to contraceptive supplies to prevent unintended pregnancies;

(2) Because many Americans hope to complete their families with two or three children, many women spend the majority of their reproductive lives trying to prevent pregnancy;

(3) Research has shown that 49 percent of all large group insurance plans do not routinely provide coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices. While virtually all health care plans cover prescription drugs generally, the absence of prescription contraceptive coverage is largely responsible for the fact that women spend 68 percent more in out-of-pocket expenses for health care than men; and

(4) Requiring insurance coverage for prescription drugs and devices for contraception is in the public interest in improving the health of mothers, children, and families and in providing for health insurance coverage which is fairer and more equitable.

(b) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) "Health benefit policy" means any individual or group plan, policy, or contract for health care services issued, delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed in this state, including those contracts executed by the State of Georgia on behalf of state employees under Article 1 of Chapter 18 of Title 45, by a health care corporation, health maintenance organization, preferred provider organization, accident and sickness insurer, fraternal benefit society, hospital service corporation, medical service corporation, provider sponsored health care corporation, or other insurer or similar entity.

(2) "Insurer" means an accident and sickness insurer, fraternal benefit society, hospital service corporation, medical service corporation, health care corporation, health maintenance organization, or any similar entity authorized to issue contracts under this title.

(c) Every health benefit policy that is delivered, issued, executed, or renewed in this state or approved for issuance or renewal in this state by the Commissioner on or after July 1, 1999, which provides coverage for prescription drugs on an outpatient basis shall provide coverage for any prescribed drug or device approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for use as a contraceptive. This Code section shall not apply to limited benefit policies described in paragraph (4) of subsection (e) of Code Section 33-30-12. Likewise, nothing contained in this Code section shall be construed to require any insurance company to provide coverage for abortion.

(d) No insurer shall impose upon any person receiving prescription contraceptive benefits pursuant to this Code section any:

(1) Copayment, coinsurance payment, or fee that is not equally imposed upon all individuals in the same benefit category, class, coinsurance level or copayment level, receiving benefits for prescription drugs; or

(2) Reduction in allowable reimbursement for prescription drug benefits.

(e) This Code section shall not be construed to:

(1) Require coverage for prescription coverage benefits in any contract, policy, or plan that does not otherwise provide coverage for prescription drugs; or

(2) Preclude the use of closed formularies; provided, however, that such formularies shall include oral, implant, and injectable contraceptive drugs, intrauterine devices, and prescription barrier methods.

HISTORY: Code 1981, § 33-24-59.6, enacted by Ga. L. 1999, p. 317, § 1. <form name="SubmitText" action="/research/search/mlst/submit" method="post"> </form>

AustinChief
02-08-2012, 09:30 PM
True but if employers do offer insurance they have to meet the 3 standards Arizona has set.

Look at Georgia's bill they don't offer any exemptions..

<form name="SubmitText" action="/research/search/mlst/submit" method="post"> </form>

While I am against this as well, it isn't nearly as bad as what the Federal govt is attempting.

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 09:36 PM
While I am against this as well, it isn't nearly as bad as what the Federal govt is attempting.

No exemption is better than partial exemption?

What about Hawaii?

(1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity; (2) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity;
(3) The entity is not staffed by public employees; and
(4) The entity is a nonprofit organization as defined under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 09:50 PM
And for anybody interested in what other states are doing here is a great site that summarizes it all. Currently it looks like 10 states offer NO exemptions.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx

AustinChief
02-08-2012, 09:50 PM
No exemption is better than partial exemption?


NO, that isn't what I was saying. I was saying that in those states at least the Church can simply choose to not offer insurance at all. That still sucks but it's far better then what the federal govt is attempting.

BTW.. does ANYONE honestly think this will stand?

Here is what will happen...

1) Obama will change the contraceptive mandate
or
2) Obama will give the Church a waiver of some kind
or
3) Obama will continue to piss on the Church and lose the next election and the next president will get rid of this nonsense
or
4) This will go to the Supreme Court and get struck down in (at the least) a 6-3 decision

HonestChieffan
02-08-2012, 09:57 PM
NO, that isn't what I was saying. I was saying that in those states at least the Church can simply choose to not offer insurance at all. That still sucks but it's far better then what the federal govt is attempting.

BTW.. does ANYONE honestly think this will stand?

Here is what will happen...

1) Obama will change the contraceptive mandate
or
2) Obama will give the Church a waiver of some kind
or
3) Obama will continue to piss on the Church and lose the next election and the next president will get rid of this nonsense
or
4) This will go to the Supreme Court and get struck down in (at the least) a 6-3 decision

Likely. The damage is done and if he backtracks he won't get the Christian groups back. Plus people already are wondering how anti religion he will be if respected and has 4 years with no election to temper his desires.

dirk digler
02-08-2012, 10:02 PM
NO, that isn't what I was saying. I was saying that in those states at least the Church can simply choose to not offer insurance at all. That still sucks but it's far better then what the federal govt is attempting.

BTW.. does ANYONE honestly think this will stand?

Here is what will happen...

1) Obama will change the contraceptive mandate
or
2) Obama will give the Church a waiver of some kind
or
3) Obama will continue to piss on the Church and lose the next election and the next president will get rid of this nonsense
or
4) This will go to the Supreme Court and get struck down in (at the least) a 6-3 decision

I think 1 or 2 will happen though they have already exempted churches and houses of worship, but not for other religious institutions such as hospitals, universities and charities.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 07:04 AM
Looks like Obama is going to announce a plan to appease religious groups today.

La literatura
02-10-2012, 07:42 AM
Looks like Obama is going to announce a plan to appease religious groups today.

Good. Let's see what the woman fallout is. Predictions?

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 07:47 AM
Good. Let's see what the woman fallout is. Predictions?

My guess is they will be issuing waivers. Win win for everyone.

petegz28
02-10-2012, 07:51 AM
Looks like Obama is going to announce a plan to appease religious groups today.

It appears to be rather weak on the surface. The plan that should be used is this thing called the Constitution. What cracks me up is there is a large group of people who will scream bloody murder at the though of having someone say "under God" in The Pledge yet when a law comes down that forces a religion to operate in ways against their beliefs the same crowd seems to fall silent. I heard some deal this morning where Sebelius is more or less trying to decide what is religious and what isn't. It's a simple concept. Catholic hospital means catholic values means you can always go somewhere else if you don't like it.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 07:54 AM
It appears to be rather weak on the surface. The plan that should be used is this thing called the Constitution. What cracks me up is there is a large group of people who will scream bloody murder at the though of having someone say "under God" in The Pledge yet when a law comes down that forces a religion to operate in ways against their beliefs the same crowd seems to fall silent. I heard some deal this morning where Sebelius is more or less trying to decide what is religious and what isn't. It's a simple concept. Catholic hospital means catholic values means you can always go somewhere else if you don't like it.

Does the Constitution apply to the states?

petegz28
02-10-2012, 07:57 AM
Does the Constitution apply to the states?

I give up...does it?

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 08:04 AM
I give up...does it?

I am asking you. 28 states already have laws mandating that you include contraception in insurance plans you provide your employees. 10 states have ZERO exemptions.

AustinChief
02-10-2012, 08:37 AM
I am asking you. 28 states already have laws mandating that you include contraception in insurance plans you provide your employees. 10 states have ZERO exemptions.

Jesus dude, how can you not get the difference between the fact that 27 of those states don't have a MANDATE! Quit spewing the 28 states crap. It's 1 state. In the other 27 you can opt out of having insurance entirely. Huge difference.

patteeu
02-10-2012, 08:55 AM
My guess is they will be issuing waivers. Win win for everyone.

Why is that a win? Waivers are an unreliable fix. If the criteria for a waiver is clear cut, why not make it part of the basic regulation? If it's not clear cut, it depends on the whimsy of the regulators in charge at any given time.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 09:01 AM
Jesus dude, how can you not get the difference between the fact that 27 of those states don't have a MANDATE! Quit spewing the 28 states crap. It's 1 state. In the other 27 you can opt out of having insurance entirely. Huge difference.

Of course they can opt out of insurance entirely but you know as well as I do they won't do that. One major reason people choose to go work for large businesses is because of their benefits which includes health insurance.

And actually I believe it is 2 states now IIRC. Vermont has single payer as well :p

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 09:09 AM
Why is that a win? Waivers are an unreliable fix. If the criteria for a waiver is clear cut, why not make it part of the basic regulation? If it's not clear cut, it depends on the whimsy of the regulators in charge at any given time.

Looks like it is not going to be a waiver

The administration will expand the religious exemption for religiously affiliated universities and hospitals, the source said.

thecoffeeguy
02-10-2012, 09:39 AM
My guess is they will be issuing waivers. Win win for everyone.

Does not matter.
The damage is done.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 09:41 AM
Under the new language, Jarrett said, religious institutions would still be required to cover contraception as part of any health care plan they offer to their employees. But they also will be offered a veritable opt-out clause. If they determine that the requirement violates their religious sensibilities, the burden would then fall on the insurance company to cover the cost.

That insurance company would be required to inform the recipient of their benefits package in addition to paying for the contraception. This, explained Jarrett, effectively removes religious institutions from any role in the process, which the White House hopes will mute the criticism it has received. Insurers will be fine picking up the slack, she added, because the cost saved in covering contraception outweighs the expenses made in covering procedures that result from not having contraception available.

oldandslow
02-10-2012, 09:44 AM
Just thinking out loud....

You're Obama & Co. watching the GOP nomination process unfold and determine that it suddenly appears as if Romney is going to close things out early. What can we do to throw a money wrench into Mitt's plan? Hey! Let's bring a social issue to the front-burner and watch them eat their young again! Oh, and by the way, Mitt's state is one that already mandates such coverage. Brilliant!

It's safe to say, in the long run, this issue (and the resulting emergence of social issues to the debate) will cause Romney more grief than Obama.

patteeu
02-10-2012, 09:44 AM
Under the new language, Jarrett said, religious institutions would still be required to cover contraception as part of any health care plan they offer to their employees. But they also will be offered a veritable opt-out clause. If they determine that the requirement violates their religious sensibilities, the burden would then fall on the insurance company to cover the cost.

That insurance company would be required to inform the recipient of their benefits package in addition to paying for the contraception. This, explained Jarrett, effectively removes religious institutions from any role in the process, which the White House hopes will mute the criticism it has received. Insurers will be fine picking up the slack, she added, because the cost saved in covering contraception outweighs the expenses made in covering procedures that result from not having contraception available.

You don't believe that, do you?

Pioli Zombie
02-10-2012, 09:49 AM
Saw Santorum address CPAC. Dude has really found his voice. He's going to win the nomination.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 09:50 AM
You don't believe that, do you?

Don't know. I would hope they would have consulted with some of the big insurance companies prior.

orange
02-10-2012, 11:11 AM
Just like they WON'T BE AFFILIATED with the third-party they hire to provide their employees' health insurance.


Exactly what they could do with their health plan - let a third party handle it.

No, I already dealt with this at length in the previous thread; you can read that if you like. But it came down to me saying exactly the same thing - let a third party handle it. It's just a bolt out of the blue that you happened to pick out a PERFECT EXAMPLE of a Catholic employer doing JUST THAT.

UPDATE: 10:25 a.m. -- In a separate conference call that started at 9:45 a.m Friday, Jarrett briefed a large number of women's health groups about the administration's proposed changes to the so-called contraception rule.

Under the new language, Jarrett said, religious institutions would still be required to cover contraception as part of any health care plan they offer to their employees. But they also will be offered a veritable opt-out clause. If they determine that the requirement violates their religious sensibilities, the burden would then fall on the insurance company to cover the cost.

That insurance company would be required to inform the recipient of their benefits package in addition to paying for the contraception. This, explained Jarrett, effectively removes religious institutions from any role in the process, which the White House hopes will mute the criticism it has received. Insurers will be fine picking up the slack, she added, because the cost saved in covering contraception outweighs the expenses made in covering procedures that result from not having contraception available.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/obama-birth-control_n_1267677.html

LMAO

vailpass
02-10-2012, 11:15 AM
NO, that isn't what I was saying. I was saying that in those states at least the Church can simply choose to not offer insurance at all. That still sucks but it's far better then what the federal govt is attempting.

BTW.. does ANYONE honestly think this will stand?

Here is what will happen...

1) Obama will change the contraceptive mandate
or
2) Obama will give the Church a waiver of some kind
or
3) Obama will continue to piss on the Church and lose the next election and the next president will get rid of this nonsense
or
4) This will go to the Supreme Court and get struck down in (at the least) a 6-3 decision

Yep. God willing it will be #3.

patteeu
02-10-2012, 11:29 AM
Don't know. I would hope they would have consulted with some of the big insurance companies prior.

If it's cheaper for insurance to cover contraceptives than to not cover it, then why is there an issue about paying for it at all? Rates should be lower if contraception is included. But I suspect that they're not. And if they're not, I think Valerie Jarrett is pulling your leg.

orange
02-10-2012, 11:29 AM
The Catholic bishops have called the new health coverage rule "an attack on religious freedom" and argue that all employers who object to contraception -- not just faith-based organizations -- should be exempt from having to provide it to their employees.

"That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether," said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the USCCB*, "not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers."

He added, "If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate."

* U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

vailpass
02-10-2012, 11:32 AM
The Catholic bishops have called the new health coverage rule "an attack on religious freedom" and argue that all employers who object to contraception -- not just faith-based organizations -- should be exempt from having to provide it to their employees.

"That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether," said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the USCCB*, "not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers."

He added, "If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate."

* U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

I'm sure we could arrange to have your real hand tipped.

patteeu
02-10-2012, 11:39 AM
The Catholic bishops have called the new health coverage rule "an attack on religious freedom" and argue that all employers who object to contraception -- not just faith-based organizations -- should be exempt from having to provide it to their employees.

"That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether," said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the USCCB*, "not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers."

He added, "If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate."

* U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

I was wondering about this. I don't know why a hospital affiliated with the Catholic Church is more deserving of an exemption than a sole proprietorship run by a devout Catholic businessman. Good for the USCCB.

La literatura
02-10-2012, 12:24 PM
I was wondering about this. I don't know why a hospital affiliated with the Catholic Church is more deserving of an exemption than a sole proprietorship run by a devout Catholic businessman. Good for the USCCB.

I predicted this early on in this debate in one of the threads. I mentioned how hard it would be to get severability based on these exact principles.

patteeu
02-10-2012, 12:26 PM
I predicated this early on in this debate in one of the threads. I mentioned how hard it would be to get severability based on these exact principles.

What do you think the solution should be?

La literatura
02-10-2012, 12:32 PM
What do you think the solution should be?

I have no idea. I just saw the problem. Catholic affiliated organizations, non-profit or profit, can get a waiver because of religious principles, but a business made up of Catholic owners are denied the waiver, even though their argument is the exact same as the Catholic organizations (religious principles) is quite the dichotomy. If we made it an all or nothing opt-out, everyone could claim they have religious beliefs against contraception, and everyone would opt-out, because it saves money.

patteeu
02-10-2012, 12:50 PM
I have no idea. I just saw the problem. Catholic affiliated organizations, non-profit or profit, can get a waiver because of religious principles, but a business made up of Catholic owners are denied the waiver, even though their argument is the exact same as the Catholic organizations (religious principles) is quite the dichotomy. If we made it an all or nothing opt-out, everyone could claim they have religious beliefs against contraception, and everyone would opt-out, because it saves money.

If we believe Valerie Jarrett, it ought to be cheaper to offer a plan with contraception, but of course, most of us aren't foolish enough to believe her.

I think the obvious answer to this is that contraception shouldn't be a part of the basic, mandatory coverage package. Employers ought to be able to enhance their plan with contraception coverage if they want to. I suppose that an alternative would be for the government to force insurance companies to directly contact employees who don't have contraception coverage and offer an add on at the employee's expense.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 01:03 PM
If we believe Valerie Jarrett, it ought to be cheaper to offer a plan with contraception, but of course, most of us aren't foolish enough to believe her.

I think the obvious answer to this is that contraception shouldn't be a part of the basic, mandatory coverage package. Employers ought to be able to enhance their plan with contraception coverage if they want to. I suppose that an alternative would be for the government to force insurance companies to directly contact employees who don't have contraception coverage and offer an add on at the employee's expense.

Is it cheaper to pay for contraception coverage or pay for the delivery of a baby?

patteeu
02-10-2012, 01:27 PM
Is it cheaper to pay for contraception coverage or pay for the delivery of a baby?

I don't have enough information to answer that question, nor do I think it's necessary for us to know the answer to know that Valerie Jarrett is wrong.

If the cost of healthcare is greater when contraceptives aren't covered then insurance that includes contraceptive coverage should be cheaper than insurance that doesn't include contraceptive coverage.

If the cost of healthcare is less when you don't cover contraceptives, then insurance companies won't be "fine picking up the slack" for the reason Jarrett advances.

orange
02-10-2012, 01:35 PM
Provision of contraception has been proven to be cost-effective as, besides its contraceptive benefits, it produces huge cost-savings by preventing unintended pregnancies that more than offset the costs of providing contraception. In the USA, use of contraception is estimated to prevent 12 million unintended pregnancies annually, leading to direct annual medical cost-savings of $19 billion. In California alone, provision of contraceptive services through Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care and Treatment), California's publicly funded family planning program, produced cost savings to the health and social services of over $1 billion in 2003, resulting from prevention of 178,000 unintended pregnancies in a population of 955,000 women that were enrolled in the program. The program yielded total savings of $3.52 per dollar spent on service provision. In the UK, public provision of family planning services saved the NHS over 2.5 billion [pounds sterling] in 1991. When additional savings from income maintenance payments (e.g. child benefit and single parent allowance) were considered, the overall cost-savings to the public purse reached 25 billion [pounds sterling] ($40 billion at today's exchange rate).

read more: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb064/is_1_30/ai_n32181138/

“A 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health, a membership group for large private- and public-sector employers to address their health policy concerns, estimated that it costs employers 15–17% more to not provide contraceptive coverage in employee health plans than to provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of pregnancy and indirect costs such as employee absence and reduced productivity.”

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/CPSW-testimony.pdf

KC Dan
02-10-2012, 01:36 PM
UPDATE: 10:25 a.m. -- In a separate conference call that started at 9:45 a.m Friday, Jarrett briefed a large number of women's health groups about the administration's proposed changes to the so-called contraception rule.


Under the new language, Jarrett said, religious institutions would still be required to cover contraception as part of any health care plan they offer to their employees. But they also will be offered a veritable opt-out clause. If they determine that the requirement violates their religious sensibilities, the burden would then fall on the insurance company to cover the cost.

That insurance company would be required to inform the recipient of their benefits package in addition to paying for the contraception. This, explained Jarrett, effectively removes religious institutions from any role in the process, which the White House hopes will mute the criticism it has received. Insurers will be fine picking up the slack, she added, because the cost saved in covering contraception outweighs the expenses made in covering procedures that result from not having contraception available.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/obama-birth-control_n_1267677.html

LMAOMy God....this is a great example of how mandates by the Feds take away freedom. I can hear the WH discussion, "So, how can we change wording to get what WE want the end game to be so we don't piss off our base but placate the press and the other side enough to get by"....F'n criminals

patteeu
02-10-2012, 01:38 PM
Provision of contraception has been proven to be cost-effective as, besides its contraceptive benefits, it produces huge cost-savings by preventing unintended pregnancies that more than offset the costs of providing contraception. In the USA, use of contraception is estimated to prevent 12 million unintended pregnancies annually, leading to direct annual medical cost-savings of $19 billion. In California alone, provision of contraceptive services through Family PACT (Planning, Access, Care and Treatment), California's publicly funded family planning program, produced cost savings to the health and social services of over $1 billion in 2003, resulting from prevention of 178,000 unintended pregnancies in a population of 955,000 women that were enrolled in the program. The program yielded total savings of $3.52 per dollar spent on service provision. In the UK, public provision of family planning services saved the NHS over 2.5 billion [pounds sterling] in 1991. When additional savings from income maintenance payments (e.g. child benefit and single parent allowance) were considered, the overall cost-savings to the public purse reached 25 billion [pounds sterling] ($40 billion at today's exchange rate).

read more: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb064/is_1_30/ai_n32181138/

That's interesting info, but it doesn't address the point about Jarrett's comment.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 01:40 PM
I don't have enough information to answer that question, nor do I think it's necessary for us to know the answer to know that Valerie Jarrett is wrong.

If the cost of healthcare is greater when contraceptives aren't covered then insurance that includes contraceptive coverage should be cheaper than insurance that doesn't include contraceptive coverage.

If the cost of healthcare is less when you don't cover contraceptives, then insurance companies won't be "fine picking up the slack" for the reason Jarrett advances.

But that is what she is saying. It is cheaper for insurance companies to pay the tab on contraceptive coverage than it is to pay for women having babies.

BTW in 2009 the average cost of a normal uncomplicated birth was $10,000. You can buy a lifetime supply of birth control at the price.

orange
02-10-2012, 01:43 PM
That's interesting info, but it doesn't address the point about Jarrett's comment.

Yes , it does:

In the USA, use of contraception is estimated to prevent 12 million unintended pregnancies annually, leading to direct annual medical cost-savings of $19 billion.

Not all of that cost would have been on insurance companies, but much more of it now with mandated coverage.

Also, there's the other bit I added in, which directly concerns insurance:


“A 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health, a membership group for large private- and public-sector employers to address their health policy concerns, estimated that it costs employers 15–17% more to not provide contraceptive coverage in employee health plans than to provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of pregnancy and indirect costs such as employee absence and reduced productivity.”

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/CPSW-testimony.pdf

patteeu
02-10-2012, 01:43 PM
But that is what she is saying. It is cheaper for insurance companies to pay the tab on contraceptive coverage than it is to pay for women having babies.

BTW in 2009 the average cost of a normal uncomplicated birth was $10,000. You can buy a lifetime supply of birth control at the price.

That's not what she's saying. She's saying that the additional "slack" will be picked up by the insurance companies. What additional "slack" is she talking about if she's not talking about additional cost?

vailpass
02-10-2012, 01:44 PM
obama beaten into a hasty retreat by the Catholic church because he was so arrogant he thought he could push something like this through even though many of his own people spoke against it.
Uppity bastard.

patteeu
02-10-2012, 01:47 PM
Yes , it does:

In the USA, use of contraception is estimated to prevent 12 million unintended pregnancies annually, leading to direct annual medical cost-savings of $19 billion.

Not all of that cost would have been on insurance companies, but much more of it now with mandated coverage.

Also, there's the other bit I added in, which directly concerns insurance:

What do you mean by "cost... on insurance companies". That's not how insurance works.

It doesn't address Jarrett's statement because it suggests that there is no slack to pick up. She said there was. Are they going to now charge Catholic industries higher premiums to account for the lack of contraceptive coverage and then offer contraception coverage directly to the employees? This is all an illusion and it doesn't fix the basic problem.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 01:48 PM
That's not what she's saying. She's saying that the additional "slack" will be picked up by the insurance companies. What additional "slack" is she talking about if she's not talking about additional cost?

Insurers will be fine picking up the slack, she added, because the cost saved in covering contraception outweighs the expenses made in covering procedures that result from not having contraception available.

The way I read it is that insurance will cover the slack because not having contraception they will end up paying for a birth instead (expenses in covering procedures that result from NOT having contraception).

patteeu
02-10-2012, 01:48 PM
The way I read it is that insurance will cover the slack because not having contraception they will end up paying for a birth instead (expenses in covering procedures that result from NOT having contraception).

That doesn't make any sense. What slack?

orange
02-10-2012, 01:55 PM
What do you mean by "cost... on insurance companies". That's not how insurance works.

But it's how society works. Not all the medical costs fell on insurance companies because so many people were uninsured. That should be obvious. And it will be much less now.

You know what "free-riding people" are. Well, insurance companies are people, too, I'm told.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 01:59 PM
That doesn't make any sense. What slack?

hypothetical

Insurance without contraception = $100
Insurance with contraception = $110

$10\month is the slack which is cheaper than a $10,000 baby

patteeu
02-10-2012, 02:09 PM
hypothetical

Insurance without contraception = $100
Insurance with contraception = $110

$10\month is the slack which is cheaper than a $10,000 baby

According to the information Orange posted (and you theorized), you've got it backward.

Insurance without contraception = $110
Insurance with contraception= $100

Where's the slack?

patteeu
02-10-2012, 02:12 PM
But it's how society works. Not all the medical costs fell on insurance companies because so many people were uninsured. That should be obvious. And it will be much less now.

You know what "free-riding people" are. Well, insurance companies are people, too, I'm told.

Insurance companies don't pay for free riders. They pass the costs on to premium paying customers. Therefore, there's no slack for the insurance companies to pick up. It looks to me like Obama's compromise plan is a scheme to let the insurance companies pocket some extra profit, if what you say about the cost effectiveness of contraception is true. Or maybe they'll lower everyone's prices and leave profits alone, in which case how has Obama's compromise done anything to fix the original problem?

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 02:16 PM
According to the information Orange posted (and you theorized), you've got it backward.

Insurance without contraception = $110
Insurance with contraception= $100

Where's the slack?

I didn't totally read Orange's post (sorry Orange) but everything that I have looked at if I was going to buy myself insurance contraception coverage is an option which means the premium will be higher than without it.

AustinChief
02-10-2012, 02:27 PM
Yes , it does:

In the USA, use of contraception is estimated to prevent 12 million unintended pregnancies annually, leading to direct annual medical cost-savings of $19 billion.

Not all of that cost would have been on insurance companies, but much more of it now with mandated coverage.

Also, there's the other bit I added in, which directly concerns insurance:

That is complete and utter garbage and you know it. You are attempting to say that FREE contraceptives provided through insurance equates to zero unintended pregnancies. (At least that is what the "math" of your argument is attempting to say)

The problem is the entire premise. As I pointed out at the VERY beginning, the economic argument is complete and utter nonsense. Let me say it again just to be clear...

NO AMERICAN WOMAN IS NOT USING ORAL CONTRACEPTION BECAUSE SHE CAN'T AFFORD IT

It is freely available EVERYWHERE. So the idea that the economics of it come into play is ludicrous and a bullshit justification.

Now, if you want to discuss the more expensive LARCs or straight up sterilization procedures.. that is a different issue. (do you know, what the mandates are for those? I don't have a clue)

orange
02-10-2012, 02:30 PM
Insurance companies don't pay for free riders. They pass the costs on to premium paying customers. Therefore, there's no slack for the insurance companies to pick up. It looks to me like Obama's compromise plan is a scheme to let the insurance companies pocket some extra profit, if what you say about the cost effectiveness of contraception is true. Or maybe they'll lower everyone's prices and leave profits alone, in which case how has Obama's compromise done anything to fix the original problem?

I'm saying that insurance companies were themselves free-riding on this because IMHO a very high percentage of unwanted pregnancies occurred within the uninsured demographic. I have no statistical evidence to back this up, just common sense. But that Guttmacher report I found afterwards makes it pretty clear that insurance costs less (to the company) when they provide contraception coverage.

As for how much this additional +/- cost will be in the new model, I don't know. It probably won't be itemized by any insurance company, and will probably take years for statistical evidence to pile up. In the meantime, they will look at their models and decide what it would do to their required prices and act accordingly.

And as for how Obama's compromise has fixed anything - it's fixed the conversation. I'm sure the right-wing will not accept this, but the liberals will get back under the tent (Catholic Health Organization has already endorsed it, for example) and the debate will be on different terms - like Bishops saying we must eliminate contraception coverage for everyone. A debate Obama is more than happy to have.

[edit] And speaking of changing the conversation:

Picarello, USCCB: "If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate."
patteeu: "a sole proprietorship run by a devout Catholic businessman"

LOLLMAOLOL

HonestChieffan
02-10-2012, 02:32 PM
Obama has played this issue like a rank amateur

His attempt to compromise has made his position even worse

orange
02-10-2012, 02:33 PM
complete and utter garbage

No, I'm going to take Guttmacher Institute's analysis and a peer-reviewed report in Conscience journal over yours, I'm afraid.

By the way, you owe me an apology, don't you?

La literatura
02-10-2012, 02:33 PM
Obama has played this issue like a rank amateur

His attempt to compromise has made his position even worse

Why's that?

AustinChief
02-10-2012, 03:02 PM
No, I'm going to take Guttmacher Institute's analysis and a peer-reviewed report in Conscience journal over yours, I'm afraid.

By the way, you owe me an apology, don't you?

Gotcha.. so you HONESTLY believe that women in America are NOT taking the Pill because they can't afford it? You do know that use of prescription contraceptives jumped a whopping 3% from 1995 to 2002. A time when insurance companies began to offer coverage for it. Of course that HUGE 3% jump in usage doesn't also take into account the drop in cost and massive increase in availability of generic alternatives. Nor does it account for changing social trends. Nor does it account for a 7% DROP in usage of over the counter contraception. So, now do you see the problem? So, we are back to the BIG question. Do you honestly think women aren't taking the pill because they can't afford it? (I will stipulate that they aren't using much more effective long term methods because of expense... but again, I don't think those are in the mandate)

And no I don't owe you an apology. what are you a 12 year old girl? I asked you a question in the other thread, there was no insult.

So, will you be intellectually honest and admit that there is ABSOLUTELY NO LEGITIMATE reason for Obama to have won the award? (just like numerous other award winners)

Not sure, what I said here to cause your lady parts to bleed...

orange
02-10-2012, 03:06 PM
I asked you a question in the other thread, there was no insult.

You lied about my position.

If not - state it plainly right here. What IS - AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN - my position on Obama's peace prize? And given that - WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO "ADMIT" ANYTHING AT ALL?

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 03:10 PM
So, we are back to the BIG question. Do you honestly think women aren't taking the pill because they can't afford it? (I

Yes...some

AustinChief
02-10-2012, 03:11 PM
You lied about my position.

If not - state it plainly right here. What IS - AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN - my position on Obama's peace prize? And given that WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO ADMIT ANYTHING AT ALL?

I had no clue what your position was. I just asked you (as an Obama supporter) to admit that he did NOTHING to deserve it. I didn't LIE about anything. I would have said the exact same thing to any Obama supporter who happened to be in the thread. All you had to say was. "Yep, he did nothing to deserve. I have said as much in the past." And I would respond "fair enough."

orange
02-10-2012, 03:13 PM
And I would respond "fair enough."

No you wouldn't. I present the prima facie evidence that YOU DIDN'T.

Even though you read it - again the prima facie evidence that you knew exactly what I was referring to in this completely different thread.

You ran away with your tail between your blood-dripping inner thighs.

AustinChief
02-10-2012, 03:14 PM
Yes...some

Where? On the fucking moon? :D

Seriously, Planned Parenthood and others will give you the Pill fro free if necessary. The only way I can see this POSSIBLY being the case is if someone is a)too stupid to know this or b)lives in the mountains in a shack and doesn't have access to a free clinic of any kind

AustinChief
02-10-2012, 03:16 PM
No you wouldn't. I present the prima facie evidence that YOU DIDN'T.

You ran away with your tail between your bleeding inner thighs.

Fuck off you ignorant twit. I hadn't been back in that thread yet. (not until after you posted your "apology" whine here) I don't LIVE in DC like you. (and I knew where to look since I am only currently posting in TWO threads.. this one and my one post over there... didn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out you must be referencing the other thread OR you had finally gone completely batshit nuts)

vailpass
02-10-2012, 03:17 PM
No you wouldn't. I present the prima facie evidence that YOU DIDN'T.

Even though you read it - again the prima facie evidence that you knew exactly what I was referring to in this completely different thread.

You ran away with your tail between your blood-dripping inner thighs.

LMAO Bitches sound funny when they try to talk tough.

dirk digler
02-10-2012, 03:21 PM
Where? On the fucking moon? :D

Seriously, Planned Parenthood and others will give you the Pill fro free if necessary. The only way I can see this POSSIBLY being the case is if someone is a)too stupid to know this or b)lives in the mountains in a shack and doesn't have access to a free clinic of any kind

Ok. Do you know any 14-15 year olds that can afford it and who's parents aren't on Medicaid? Where I live there is no PP and our health clinic doesn't provide free pills. There is a women's health clinic that stops in our town but it is based on income.

patteeu
02-10-2012, 03:23 PM
I didn't totally read Orange's post (sorry Orange) but everything that I have looked at if I was going to buy myself insurance contraception coverage is an option which means the premium will be higher than without it.

How does that square with your theory that health care costs are reduced by including contraceptive coverage?

AustinChief
02-10-2012, 03:27 PM
Ok. Do you know any 14-15 year olds that can afford it and who's parents aren't on Medicaid? Where I live there is no PP and our health clinic doesn't provide free pills. There is a women's health clinic that stops in our town but it is based on income. At $15 per month... I honestly do NOT know any 14-15 year olds that CAN'T afford it unless they are in complete poverty. (in which case it is free)

If they can get an income of $4/week... they can afford them.

So can we stop this whole bullshit side to the argument. It's crap. No one is buying it.

orange
02-10-2012, 03:32 PM
At $15 per month ... a phony number I pulled out of my ass

What is the Cost of birth control without insurance?

In: Insurance, Medical Insurance [Edit categories]
Answers.com > Wiki Answers > Categories > Business & Finance > Insurance > What is the Cost of birth control without insurance? Answer: Improve

These are the prices for birth control at the #1 Birth Control pharmacy.

Prices:

Yasmin 21
63 tabs (21x3) - USD $65
$21.67 / month CAD $76 | GBP £33 | EUR €49

Yasmin 28
84 tabs (28x3) - USD $76 CAD $89 | GBP £39 | EUR €57

Yaz
84 tabs - USD $73 CAD $85 | GBP £37 | EUR €55
Triquilar 28
84 tabs - USD $65 CAD $76 | GBP £33 | EUR €49

Triquilar 21
126 tabs - USD $89 CAD $104 | GBP £46 | EUR €67
l
Tadalafil
96 tabs - USD $219 CAD $257 | GBP £113 | EUR €165

Plan B
1 pack (2 tabs) - USD $42
Free Shipping CAD $49 | GBP £22 | EUR €32

Portia 28
168 Tablets (6 Packs of 28) - USD $79 CAD $93 | GBP £41 | EUR €60

Ortho-Evra
18 patches - USD $215
$35.83 / month CAD $252 | GBP £110 | EUR €162

Ortho Tri-cyclen 21
63 tabs - USD $69 CAD $81 | GBP £35 | EUR €52

Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo 28
28 tabs - USD $38 CAD $44 | GBP £19 | EUR €29

Ovral 21
63 tabs - USD $89 CAD $104 | GBP £46 | EUR €67

Ortho Tri-cyclen 28
84 tabs - USD $69 CAD $81 | GBP £35 | EUR €52

Ortho 777 21
63 tabs (21x3) - USD $67 CAD $78 | GBP £34 | EUR €50

Ortho-Cept 21
63 tabs - USD $52
Free Sample
CAD $61 | GBP £27 | EUR €39

Nuvaring
1 ring - USD $40
3 ring - USD $90 CAD $105 | GBP £46 | EUR €68


Mirena
1 units - USD $441 CAD $516 | GBP £226 | EUR €331

Alesse (21)
63 tabs - USD $79 CAD $92 | GBP £41 | EUR €59


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Cost_of_birth_control_without_insurance#ixzz1m1M7cQX6

Sterilization for Women (Tubal Sterilization)
Sterilization for Women at a Glance

Surgery that prevents pregnancy
Safe and highly effective
Costs between $1,500 and $6,000
Meant to be permanent

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/sterilization-women-4248.htm