War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Perhaps because they are unaware that "kill" may not be an appropriate translation. "Murder" would be the correct word.

Now we're down to splitting fine hairs, debating the accurate translation of a 2,000 year old text.

Many people feel all war is morally wrong, and even more think one war or another is morally wrong.
They get no say, we take their money by force of law and use it for war. Or killing. Or murder.

My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.
Your right to suppress the use of birth control ends at my wife's estrogen prescription.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Men have been getting screwed by the system for a long time. Who is most likely to pay alimony? What sex is more likely to serve more time and recieve harsher punishment for equivilent crimes? What sex is more likely to be falsely accused of hitting their significant other and being thrown out of their home without a fair trial? MEN. The number one recipient of affirmative action. WHITE WOMEN. How do you like that?

This is at best shifting goal posts and doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand either. Sexual bias in crime punishment, alimoney judgements, etc. are totally different issues.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

The match that started this blaze was the government mandating the Catholic institutions to provide medical insurance policies that cover birth control and sterilization procedures.

Disregard whether the mandate is good or bad thing in and of itself and answer this question: Is the mandate a violation of the Catholic institution's constitutional rights?

I think the answer is an easy one and it's a "yes".

What constitutional right was violated exactly by the government? The government isn't trying to force a change in religious ideology or beliefs. If anything they're trying to protect non Catholics from having Catholic beliefs with regard to birth control and the like from being forced on to them.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

in my eyes there's a practical conflict between the right of the Catholic university to say "we find contraception morally repugnant; we are opposed to it on religious principles, and we are not willing to pay for it" and the right of the individual employees to say "I need basic health insurance ... given our insurance system I have to get my insurance through my employer... and contraception is approved (even praised) by my religious principles ... my health insurance should not be limited by someone else's religious principles."

You know, it strikes me that this is one example of why it makes no sense for us to have employer-based healthcare insurance. It's purely a historical accident. During world war two, there were wage controls, and labor was scarce (everyone was away in the war) so employers started to compete by offering health insurance benefits to attract workers.

This is it in a nutshell!

Medicine improved dramatically in the 30's and 40's leading to more sophisticated hospitals, better standards, better treatment. Stays in hospitals, once very uncommon, became routine, and the cost of a stay could take the average worker years to retire. Insurance companies refused to offer health insurance thinking it was unprofitable. Non-profits Blue Cross and Blue Shield showed that wasn't true even though their status required them to charge all members (sick, well, old, young) the same premiums. Insurance took off in the forties. At the beginning of the decade a small minority of Americans had health insurance. Ten years later a vast majority had it. Private companies were finding younger/healthier pools, charging sick members higher premiums, and turning big profits. Away we go.

[Master Shake]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Now we're down to splitting fine hairs, debating the accurate translation of a 2,000 year old text.

Many people feel all war is morally wrong, and even more think one war or another is morally wrong.
They get no say, we take their money by force of law and use it for war. Or killing. Or murder.

My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.
Your right to suppress the use of birth control ends at my wife's estrogen prescription.

Well, we do have "conscientious objector" status for those whose religious beliefs do not allow them to kill another person during war time.

[c1ue]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

This study has interesting conclusions regarding the relative devoutness of American Catholics vs. their European (and wealthy) peers:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/784/amer...ics-pope-visit





The high level of devoutness in relation to per capita income levels perhaps explains the militant nature of these types of conflicts in the US; poorer nations with higher absolute levels of devoutness simply refuse to countenance alternatives banned by the Catholic Church, while very low levels of devoutness don't trigger conflict.

[oddlots]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

What were healthcare costs like before we had insurance? Before government got involved in mandating coverage and/or service for those not covered?

The US has one of the highest health care care burdens as a percentage of GDP in the industrialized world. And yes, the vast majority of those countries have socialized medicicine.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...as_%25_GDP.png

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Well, we do have "conscientious objector" status for those whose religious beliefs do not allow them to kill another person during war time.

Its a bit of a joke though. You have to be approved for conscientious objector status in order to get it and that requires demonstrating "religious training and belief" that ALL wars are wrong. Personal morality and ethics codes, philosophy, and political reasons aren't enough. So very very few who apply for conscientious objector status are ever able to get it.

More info. here.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...g_as_%_GDP.png

That is a good chart but I like this one better since it shows not only how much more we spend per person but also how despite that we're getting treated by doctors less than almost any one else.



Note: the chart uses data that is from 2007. Healthcare costs have risen more dramatically in the US than elsewhere since then so things in reality are even more out of whack now than the chart is showing.

[Ellen Z]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

What were healthcare costs like before we had insurance? Before government got involved in mandating coverage and/or service for those not covered?

It seems to me there are four separate elements in your question:
_____ insurance
_____ mandated services for those not covered
_____ mandated coverage
_____ costs

I only know a bit about those subjects, but even with my lack of knowledge you’re going to get a long post, because you're asking complicated questions.

Insurance used to be individual fee-for-service insurance. Nowadays, you find individual fee-for-service in Medicare, but not too much elsewhere.

I thought that Kaiser was the first example of group-based pre-paid health coverage, but according to Wikipedia, I'm wrong. They say, "the first group prepayment plans appeared in 1929 in response to the onset of the Great Depression.... As for Kaiser Permanente, its history dates back to the year 1933 ... [the company] would prepay 17.5% of premiums, or $1.50 per worker per month, to cover work-related injuries, while the workers would each contribute five cents per day to cover non-work-related injuries." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_...te#Early_years for much more.

Anyway, when employers first started offering health insurance coverage, government mandates were not involved.

Also we're talking about several decades ago, and costs were much lower, because medicine could do much less. Back then, people died from conditions that are curable today... doctors didn’t have expensive equipment that costs millions of dollars (and that hospitals are eager to buy, because they all want the competitive advantage of owning the latest equipment.)

ABOUT MANDATING SERVICE:

The Hill–Burton Act was passed in 1946, and it provided federal grants and guaranteed loans to improve hospital buildings, mostly in middle-class areas. States and cities were required to match the grants, so the　federal portion only accounted for one-third of the total cost. Over the years, these grants/loans have funded many/most of the hospitals we’re using today. Facilities that receive Hill-Burton funding agree not to discriminate based on race, color, national origin, or creed, and to offer some uncompensated care.

In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. Today, in United States, there’s a substantial percentage of people who have no access to basic care. But when they are seriously ill — when they have a heart attack on the street, or when they have diabetes and it’s so bad their feet have to be amputated ... then they are hospitalized and they receive a very high standard of care ... until they are discharged from hospital.

How do you feel about this? It means that if you or I have a heart attack on the sidewalk, an ambulance will take us to the closest hospital and we’re likely to get good care regardless of our ability to pay. It also means that other people will receive emergency treatment, regardless of their ability to pay.

ABOUT INSURANCE MANDATES (that say what insurance policies must include):

For many years, states have been passing laws saying this or that should be included in all insurance coverage. One argument in support is that the average person doesn’t know how to shop for insurance coverage... they could buy a policy, and then discover it doesn’t cover the sort of care most people need. (Like buying a car and discovering when starts raining that the builders didn’t include windshield wipers.)

The argument against this is that when you start mandating coverage for alcoholism and mental health treatment and liver transplants, aren’t you making coverage too expensive? Shouldn’t people be allowed to buy bare-bones coverage, if that’s what they want? This is a complicated long-running debate and at this moment I don’t know where to find a trustworthy summary.

There is a federal law called ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) which regulates employer-provided health insurance. Large employers are exempt from state insurance mandates, because they are covered by ERISA instead.

ABOUT MANDATED INSURANCE COVERAGE

Right now, we don't have this. In fact, according to the Census Bureau, in 2009 there were 50.7 million people in the U.S. (16.7% of the population) who don’t have insurance coverage. These are the people who don’t get insulin or other preventive measures to control diabetes, but do get the best standard of care when they develop gangrenous feet. One of the arguments for the new law is that we are now treating lots of people in the emergency room, in the most inefficient, expensive way possible.

As you know, the new healthcare reform law does mandate that individuals will get health insurance. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about this (and several other aspects of the law) starting on March 26.

I recall the healthcare debate in 1993. At that time, an individual healthcare insurance mandate was a Republican idea. It was put in the same terms as requiring car insurance before you drive a car. You have car insurance in case the car gets in an accident; people would similarly be required to get health insurance in case their body got in an accident, or was hurt in other ways. How times have changed.

I found dcarrigg’s comments about the unintended side-effects of the insurance mandate, earlier in this thread, very interesting and important. Personally, I think there are many legitimate concerns about how the new law will play out in real life... I expect it will need some tinkering.

On the other hand, let’s look at what happens if there is no individual mandate.

Suppose it’s five years ago, you’re working at a large company and you have good insurance. You develop a serious illness... let’s say multiple sclerosis, or a fast-moving cancer ... it progresses to the point where you can no longer work, and you’re laid off. For 18 months, you have COBRA insurance coverage. You’re a responsible person, you have savings for emergencies ... but when the 18 months ends you find you cannot get insurance coverage at any price, because you have have MS, or cancer. You have a pre-existing condition... you had good insurance coverage until you got ill... but now, sorry!!

The new healthcare law says that an insurance company can’t deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. (I don’t know exactly when this takes effect, or any of the other details, but this is clearly one of the parts of the law that everyone agrees is a good idea.)

Well, if you are going to have coverage for pre-existing conditions, then you have to have something that requires everyone, or almost everyone, to get health insurance. It’s like the two sides of a seesaw, they have to balance. If you don’t have this requirement, if everyone knows they will definitely be able to buy insurance even when they get really sick, then of course they’ll wait till until they get really sick.

But for insurance to work, you need a large pool of people, healthy and sick, to share the cost. Everyone who has a mortgage is required to have insurance in case their house catches fire. You can’t wait until your house is burning and say, "now I’d like to buy insurance please."

This has been the longest iTulip post I’ve ever done, by far. You started out asking about costs, and I do have a valuable resource that will interest you about cutting health-care costs ... but I’m going to let it wait for another day.

[Ellen Z]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Wow! I stepped aside to start drafting a response, and when I came back there were eight new posts with important ideas.
We seem to have several different topics mixed up together in this thread.... should we separate them??
　

[photon555]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

98% of Catholics use contraception.

So out of a billion Catholics in the world, 980,000,000 use contraception? Better check those figures.

[davidstvz]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Perhaps because they are unaware that "kill" may not be an appropriate translation. "Murder" would be the correct word.

I recall Jesus saying something about taxes: render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. The context was the Jewish leaders trying to trap him into saying something that was either unpopular (pay taxes to the occupying Romans) or treasonous (don't pay taxes), but I think the point is flexible enough to apply here.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Just like to say this was a fantastic and very interesting effort post. Thanks.

[Raz]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Now we're down to splitting fine hairs, debating the accurate translation of a 2,000 year old text.

Many people feel all war is morally wrong, and even more think one war or another is morally wrong.
They get no say, we take their money by force of law and use it for war. Or killing. Or murder.

My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.
Your right to suppress the use of birth control ends at my wife's estrogen prescription.

The Roman church isn't saying that it has the right to suppress anyone's use of artificial birth control.
Roman Catholics are free to disregard the teachings of their church, but they cannot avoid the spiritual consequences.

What the magisterium of the Roman church is saying is their participation in any form of providing artificial birth control is inherently sinful and violates their free excercise.
Although I'm not Roman Catholic (I'm Eastern Orthodox), and I have profound and serious disagreement with their theology in several areas (ecclesiology, soterology, and even some of their moral theology), I do agree that their constitutional right of free excercise is being compromised by this administration.