Obama: Health Plans must include free birth control, even for Religious Organizations

Originally Posted by erosewater

So for practical purposes many people only have employer coverage available, how does it follow from there that employers need to give employees free BC?

Why can the government mandate that any insurance policy includes any provisions? If the government can mandate that an auto insurance policy needs to include a certain minumum liabilty coverage, it can mandate that a health insurance policy needs to include certain minimum levels of care, too.

[wolferine]

Originally Posted by Lucy

Because for practical purposes, the only healthcare available in the US for those of us who aren't poor, disabled, or old, is employer sponsored healthcare.

How about this, if you want "free" BC and a catholic employer does not provide it then why not work for another employer?

Should employers be forced to cover free hair cut "insurance" too?

You don't need insurance for birth control pills. It is not an unknown expense. If you want it, buy it. Forcing me to pay for your birth control pills which may be against my religion is not a proper function of government unless the government you want is a totalitarian one which forces its (religious) beliefs on all. Not really what the founding fathers had in mind - Obama is more like Stalin or Mao than Ben Franklin to be sure.

[wolferine]

Originally Posted by Lucy

Why can the government mandate that any insurance policy includes any provisions? If the government can mandate that an auto insurance policy needs to include a certain minumum liabilty coverage, it can mandate that a health insurance policy needs to include certain minimum levels of care, too.

Sure, and a government can mandate that you go to a concentration camp and take away your property. Doesn't make it right.

[erosewater]

Originally Posted by Lucy

Why can the government mandate that any insurance policy includes any provisions? If the government can mandate that an auto insurance policy needs to include a certain minumum liabilty coverage, it can mandate that a health insurance policy needs to include certain minimum levels of care, too.

Can the federal government mandate that?

Originally Posted by erosewater

Can the federal government mandate that?

Dunno. State governments do all the time.

(I find it hard to get as worked up about the difference between state and federal government as many on this board do.)

[wolferine]

Originally Posted by erosewater

Can the federal government mandate that?

Obama can do whatever he wants. The constitution is a meaningless piece of paper to him. He is the person the anti-constitutionalists have been waiting for.

[erosewater]

Originally Posted by Lucy

Dunno. State governments do all the time.

(I find it hard to get as worked up about the difference between state and federal government as many on this board do.)

You find it hard to get worked up about the way the law says our government works?

But getting back to the original point, you don't have a problem with the government saying "if you want to provide any health benefits to your employees at all, you have to provide free birth control"? Is that really comparable to minimum liability standards for individuals?

Originally Posted by erosewater

But getting back to the original point, you don't have a problem with the government saying "if you want to provide any health benefits to your employees at all, you have to provide free birth control"? Is that really comparable to minimum liability standards for individuals?

First, it's not "free", it's just covered by insurance. I assume that any deductibles, etc., that apply to other medications or procedures would apply to bc. Is that not true?

Second, while you can argue the value of "insuring" low-cost stuff, like flu shots or IUDs or strep tests, I don't see why birth control should be singled out as a form of health care that is excluded.

Third, yes, I do think it is comparable to requiring minimum liability coverage. It's setting a baseline of coverage that "counts" as insurance.

[wolferine]

Originally Posted by erosewater

You find it hard to get worked up about the way the law says our government works?

But getting back to the original point, you don't have a problem with the government saying "if you want to provide any health benefits to your employees at all, you have to provide free birth control"? Is that really comparable to minimum liability standards for individuals?

Some people don't get worked up about governments having limited enumerated powers. Go figure.

Most people don't care about freedom and don't care if the government treats you like a door mat with no rights.

[wolferine]

Originally Posted by Lucy

First, it's not "free", it's just covered by insurance. I assume that any deductibles, etc., that apply to other medications or procedures would apply to bc. Is that not true?

Second, while you can argue the value of "insuring" low-cost stuff, like flu shots or IUDs or strep tests, I don't see why birth control should be singled out as a form of health care that is excluded.

Third, yes, I do think it is comparable to requiring minimum liability coverage. It's setting a baseline of coverage that "counts" as insurance.

First, you're wrong.
Second, birth control has to do with when life begins which is a religious issue which is quite different than a flu shot or strep test.
Third, minimum liability coverage is quite different than mandating the insurance have no deductibles which is what this coverage is about. If PPACA said you must have coverage to cover $25,000 of medical care then it would be similar. If the government said, your auto insurance must cover the cost of car washes and wax then your analogy would be similar.