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

[snoo]

Originally Posted by erosewater

OK. Should doctors be forced to perform elective abortions that are not part of the small subset where the mother's life is in danger?

No they shouldn't. The woman should find a willing doctor. Not all doctors have the experience to perform such procedures and ethically if they don't have the experience they shouldn't be performing that procedure. Of course, unless it's a life and death situation. If they have that experience, then it's very likely that they don't have issues with it otherwise they wouldn't have the experience to begin with.

But that is not the same as an employer being forced to make BCP's available to it's employees under the medical plan. You can choose doctors you can't really choose medical plans. You go to the best job available to you and you take the benefits you are given. If the law says that the benefits should be the same for everyone, so be it.

Anyway, shouldn't the Catholic organizations have a little bit of faith in those they employ, if they are in fact true Catholics, not partake in such things or does faith only go one way?

Is the Catholic employer going to be with you on your doctor visit to make sure that you don't get the bcp's? Will the Catholic employer receive a report saying how many bcp's are issued under their plan and by whom (who)? Honestly I think gov't and religion should stay out of personal medical decisions.

Ok I was all over the place there.

[erosewater]

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?

No, that's not true. They are considering BC preventive care, and it is part of the new list of things that your coverage must provide for free, with no deductible or copay.

Originally Posted by Lucy

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.

I'm not singling it out, it is a known, planned, and predictable cost, i.e. something you don't cover with insurance.

Now in the case of these religious organizations, they single it out because using it is against their beliefs. Like I said before, this is like telling a Jewish organization they have to serve pork if they have a cafeteria.

Originally Posted by Lucy

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

Except as mentioned, the use of BC is not even remotely close to an insurable event.

[wolferine]

Originally Posted by snoo

No they shouldn't. The woman should find a willing doctor. Not all doctors have the experience to perform such procedures and ethically if they don't have the experience they shouldn't be performing that procedure. Of course, unless it's a life and death situation. If they have that experience, then it's very likely that they don't have issues with it otherwise they wouldn't have the experience to begin with.

But that is not the same as an employer being forced to make BCP's available to it's employees under the medical plan. You can choose doctors you can't really choose medical plans. You go to the best job available to you and you take the benefits you are given. If the law says that the benefits should be the same for everyone, so be it.

Anyway, shouldn't the Catholic organizations have a little bit of faith in those they employ, if they are in fact true Catholics, not partake in such things or does faith only go one way?

Is the Catholic employer going to be with you on your doctor visit to make sure that you don't get the bcp's? Will the Catholic employer receive a report saying how many bcp's are issued under their plan and by whom (who)? Honestly I think gov't and religion should stay out of personal medical decisions.

Ok I was all over the place there.

The catholic church should not be allowed to stop you from buying BCPs. And the govt should not be able to force the catholic church to pay for your BCPs. See how that works out to give everyone freedom?

[snoo]

Originally Posted by wolferine

The catholic church should not be allowed to stop you from buying BCPs. And the govt should not be able to force the catholic church to pay for your BCPs. See how that works out to give everyone freedom?

So basically, the Catholic organization is worried about the money they are spending on your bcp's not really the morality of it? I would think if the Catholic organization could estimate those costs, reduce the portion they contribute to your coverage and basically pass the cost to you. Problem solved?

[erosewater]

Originally Posted by snoo

So basically, the Catholic organization is worried about the money they are spending on your bcp's not really the morality of it? I would think if the Catholic organization could estimate those costs, reduce the portion they contribute to your coverage and basically pass the cost to you. Problem solved?

No, I'm pretty sure it is the morality and not the cost.

[wolferine]

Originally Posted by snoo

So basically, the Catholic organization is worried about the money they are spending on your bcp's not really the morality of it? I would think if the Catholic organization could estimate those costs, reduce the portion they contribute to your coverage and basically pass the cost to you. Problem solved?

The issue is making you pay for something you don't believe is moral.

Why do you have a problem with them charging you less for insurance by not covering something that is not even an insurable event? Then if you want it, you buy it.

Should they mandate that they cover tooth brushes, toilet paper, tooth paste, and pine nuts?

Originally Posted by erosewater

No, that's not true. They are considering BC preventive care, and it is part of the new list of things that your coverage must provide for free, with no deductible or copay.



I'm not singling it out, it is a known, planned, and predictable cost, i.e. something you don't cover with insurance.

Now in the case of these religious organizations, they single it out because using it is against their beliefs. Like I said before, this is like telling a Jewish organization they have to serve pork if they have a cafeteria.



Except as mentioned, the use of BC is not even remotely close to an insurable event.

Getting a flue shot isn't close to an "insurable event", either. In fact, nothing that's "preventative care" is an insurable event by any ordinary defintion of that term. That's what I meant by my second point.

I don't think the "serve pork" analogy is very good, both because food is different from drugs, and because Jews don't believe that non-Jews have to avoid pork. So a Jewish employer wouldn't have any issue with a non-Jewish employee using company-provided benefits to obtain pork.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

If birth control pills were taken out of the health care mandate (meaning, not allowed to be covered), then expect birth control pill prices to drop drastically.

[wolferine]

It's amazing the hoops people will jump through to attack the Catholic church, suppress freedom of religion and defend bad government.

[wolferine]

Originally Posted by Lucy

Getting a flue shot isn't close to an "insurable event", either. In fact, nothing that's "preventative care" is an insurable event by any ordinary defintion of that term. That's what I meant by my second point.

I don't think the "serve pork" analogy is very good, both because food is different from drugs, and because Jews don't believe that non-Jews have to avoid pork. So a Jewish employer wouldn't have any issue with a non-Jewish employee using company-provided benefits to obtain pork.

So your second example is bad because the government shouldn't force employers to cover flu shots either?

An employer may look at a covering flu shots as having ROI if the cost of providing them cut down on flu event costs or not. The government mandating one thing (rightly or wrongly) is no argument for them mandating everything.