War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

[Ellen Z]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

... what I really take offense too is the use of public funds for abortion.

To the best of my knowledge, no public funds are used to pay for abortions. (Legal folks, am I missing something?)

The Hyde Amendment, first passed in 1976, bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions; it primarily affects people covered by Medicaid. Since then, similar provisions have extended the ban on federal funding of abortions. Federal government employees who wish to have abortions pay for them "out-of-pocket". Abortions are not covered healthcare services for U.S. military personnel and their families, Peace Corps volunteers, Indian Health Service clients, or federal prisoners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

[charliebrown]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Well said, the all the stories start with contracetption, but what I really take offense too is the use of public funds for abortion. I don't know if it is rhetoric or not but millions of children have been killed over the decades.

Contraception no problem. I think any private entity has a right to control what they pay for or what they will not.
My company does not pay for eye glases, and they are essential for my livelyhood, and are expensive. Should I demand
that my company provide eye glasees.

My pediatrician had a copy of his malpractice bill posted on this wall. I think it was 150K? It was a long time ago (2003)
He has multiple doctors working for him in the practice. But just how many office visits does it take to just pay that bill.
1000? Yes the law suits might be small, but insurance costs are not.

Regarding church state. The beauty of separation of church and state is that even though the catholic, church may outlaw contraception, they can either tell me I'm going to hell, or ex-communicate me etc. They cannot take my money away (money=labor=life), or throw me in prison. Like gvt powers can.

I know personally that all pregnancies are not wanted, some are dangerous for the mother to bring to term etc.
Abortion must be carefully considered, and not like going through drive - through.

[wayiwalk]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

One of the fundamental tools of minority divide-and-conquer rule is controlling women. Their reproduction choices, attire, worker/career opportunities, political participation, etc. It's as old as one class ruling over the rest and is historically ramped up in times of stress to those in charge. Keep 'em busy, keep 'em distracted. The rest is the how-to details . . .

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Divide and conquer....tell that to my boss, errrr, wife.

As Mrs Assad, said, I am the REAL dictator here!

The more regulations the federal gov't writes, the more we all fight and argue.

[c1ue]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

the mandates are what is driving the escalation in medical insurance cost, coupled with the practice of defensive medicine by the doctors (vs the lawyers/tort bar) for jacking up the prices of what used to be or should be routine practices

and the principal issue with mandates is that forcing insurers to cover things like birth control, routine maternity, viagra/impotence, sexchange 'therapies', substance abuse etc etc is allowing the 'socialization' of the costs of the individual's lifestyle choices to be forced upon those who shouldnt otherwise have to shoulder the burden - and NONE of this stuff should be an 'insurable event'

Actually from what I can tell, none of the above are even in the top 5 for why health care costs are rising so quickly.

[c1ue]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

The problem with this argument, even if you want to ignore the individual's beliefs here which it seems you might be, is that it opens the door to de facto putting the (edit)beliefs/lifestyle of the individual at the mercy of the boss/institution/corporation/wage payer's beliefs/private ethics & moral principals. "I won't pay for that because it goes against my beliefs" can and will be used and abused in all sorts of new and interesting ways well outside the scope of the current anti- contraceptive debacle.

You're essentially arguing a slippery slope.

Employers are not in any way required to match all of their employee's desires. Employer's ability to reduce benefits is in no way restricted to those required by religion; an employer just has to say "I can't or won't afford it" and said benefit goes away.

I do think in this instance you've chosen the wrong horse. A Catholic corporation or organization can no more sanction contraception by paying for it any more than a libertarian organization can advocate for socialized anything.

[gwynedd1]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2012/3/15/111741/244


Sex Strike: A Dad's Support For This Event


by Steven D
Thu Mar 15th, 2012 at 11:17:41 AM EST


.... I want my daughter to have the same coverage by insurance companies to make contraception choices when she decides, before or after marriage, to engage in sexual activity, without having to pay for the full cost of her reproductive health. I also don't want you to deny her contraception or the right to make decisions about her own body that I assume you as a man will also enjoy unless you are willing to pay the cost of bearing and raising the children produced by your decision to prevent her and other women from using contraception . You say you are pro-life? Prove it by protecting the rights of children born under any circumstances, even to single mothers.

My only complain is that photo is no longer representative of the typical American woman. The legs should be fatter with vericose veins and with cellulite on the hips.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

This is ridiculous and taken to the extreme.

I think there is a gulf of difference between buying a pill for sexual pleasure and getting an abortion, which everyone wants to argue what that entails but everyone knows it is ending the life of a potential human without its own choice.

Birth control I have no problem with.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

No one is forcing her or anyone else to change their beliefs.

Correct, but de facto those beliefs are being forced onto another whether that is the Church's intent or not. Assuming the law applies equally to both the employer and the employee why would the employer's beliefs/ethics/whatever supersede those of the employee's?

edit: That seems to be a political choice (ie. Pro Life) and distinction though, this is supposed to be a constitutional law issue.\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[BigBagel]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

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.

Your right in that the government is not trying to change ideology or beliefs. They're just demanding that the Catholic Church acts in a way that is in conflict with those beliefs. The use of contraceptives by Catholics versus non-Catholics is I would bet pretty much at the same rate but the Catholic Church is a hierarchical religion and those are the Church's teachings.
They don't want to pay for insurance that covers contraception and sterilization procedures for employees of Catholic institutions. The secretary at the local church can believe whatever she wants. No one is forcing her or anyone else to change their beliefs.

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

no argument there.
the question is WHY?



well they _would_ say that, wouldnt they?

who ya gonna believe, the docs or the .gov?

not that i think the docs are all working for altruism, but i'm skeptical about any claims that only 1or2% of total med expenditures are associcated with malpractice claims, ins premiums and the resultant practice of defensive medicine - for one thing, are the legal industry's billings directly attributable to med cases accounted for in their take or the med industry's ?

I have a doctor friend who kept working at his small personal practice into his late 70s. He finally gave it up because his malpractice insurance was eating into his entire margin. Although he loved what he was doing (and it was not for the money) he finally said enough is enough.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

no argument there. the question is WHY?

Mostly due to the drug and insurance companies although the biomedical guys have been raking it in too.

well they _would_ say that, wouldnt they? who ya gonna believe, the docs or the .gov?

The CBO's study was done in 2004, well before the PPACA was even a twinkle in Obama's eye. What political motivation would they have to nay say the doctor's back in 2004?

for one thing, are the legal industry's billings directly attributable to med cases accounted for in their take or the med industry's ?

Unfortunately I don't have or know of any numbers that break down that sort of info. But note the section regarding Texas' actions to reduce malpractice costs and the results from those actions in that same article:

Look at Texas, which enacted some of the most extensive malpractice reforms in the nation in 2003. The number of lawsuits in the state has fallen by half since then, and malpractice premiums are down 30%. But health-care costs in Texas are still among the highest in the nation and are growing at a faster rate than in most other states. "I think tort reform is a good idea as a carrot to get doctors to go along with more significant health-care reforms," says law professor Charles M. Silver of the University of Texas at Austin. "But as we've proved, it isn't the answer on its own."

[lektrode]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Healthcare costs have been rising for decades at a rate significantly higher than the rate of inflation. Since at least Regan took office in fact. That was why there was a big bruhaha over health care in the 90's with the Clintons and Gingrich, even back then it was apparent things were out of control.

no argument there.
the question is WHY?

Medical malpractice suits have a marginal effect on health care costs too.

Doctors see things differently. They pay malpractice premiums that can run up to $250,000 a year for specialties such as neurology or obstetrics. It's "a huge issue for us," says Dr. Steven M. Safyer, CEO of Montefiore Medical Center in New York. "I would say about 5% of our costs are directly attributable to malpractice premiums and another 5% to defensive medicine."


A 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office came up with much lower figures, however.

well they _would_ say that, wouldnt they?

who ya gonna believe, the docs or the .gov?

not that i think the docs are all working for altruism, but i'm skeptical about any claims that only 1or2% of total med expenditures are associcated with malpractice claims, ins premiums and the resultant practice of defensive medicine - for one thing, are the legal industry's billings directly attributable to med cases accounted for in their take or the med industry's ?

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

the problem, as eye see it, is that the .gov ...epic fail, once again, by the .gov (nanny statists) to fix a problem THEY have created.

the mandates are what is driving the escalation in medical insurance cost, coupled with the practice of defensive medicine by the doctors (vs the lawyers/tort bar)

Healthcare costs have been rising for decades at a rate significantly higher than the rate of inflation. Since at least Regan took office in fact. That was why there was a big bruhaha over health care in the 90's with the Clintons and Gingrich, even back then it was apparent things were out of control.


Medical malpractice suits have a marginal effect on health care costs too.

"It's common currency in the U.S. that litigation drives medical inflation by forcing doctors and hospitals to resort to "defensive medicine," overtreating patients to avoid lawsuits.

The evidence suggests a much smaller effect. Study after study shows that costs associated with malpractice lawsuits make up 1% to 2% of the nation's $2.5 trillion annual health-care bill and that tort reform would barely make a dent in the total."

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

You do not have to work for someone who does not provide the benefits you want.

You pretty much just restated what Master Shake said to me a little ways up the page which I've already replied to.

The 1996 HIPAA law requires that you can convert to individual coverage at the end of COBRA. What you can convert to varies by state.

Sure but this is a Catch 22. For many people the cost of health care insurance is so high the only way they could "afford" it was by working for an employer who paid for a decent chunk of it.

Without that job that pays for a big chunk of it many can't afford health care or health insurance at all, so they're by default, totally screwed. That is why so many are uninsured right now.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Except I'm not arguing for my personal wants and needs and beliefs per se here, I'm arguing that employees wants and needs and beliefs need to be respected too. Why should the employees beliefs and wants and needs be subject to what amounts the employers whim?

Now others seem to have argued on top of that contraceptives are a "want" without giving a good reason why. I've mentioned already at least once that its a net economic positive for everyone one on the whole to have access to free contraceptives so what is the problem with that idea exactly? Vague rhetoric about "sticking your hand in my billfold" doesn't really cut it.