War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

the insurers getting as far out in front of the coming wave of utilization/claims as possible?
gouging for anything/everything they can get away with?
getting over-run by large group claimants which they offer lowball rates to, and then cover costs on by overcharging everybody else/individuals? (that dont have 'group buying power')

AFAIK pretty much what you say here is what is driving the costs.

FWIW in theory Obamacare was supposed to fix or at least blunt the worst of this by mandating that insurance companies spend 80-85% of all the money they take in on actual medical coverage (aka medical loss ratio) rather than over head and profits. Which sounds pretty good at first but once you start digging around the point is largely moot: in 2008 (note table 15) the average medical loss ratio was already 87-82% depending on whose numbers you look at. This won't have hardly any effect at all on insurance companies profits or the insurance coverage cost to the end individual such as you or myself. I've read elsewhere, but can't find a good source so I'd understand if you disregard this, overseas the MLR is 90% or more. The Obamacare bill is loaded with stuff like this, in theory lots of it sounds good, in practice it really doesn't do much at all to improve the situation while still allowing health care costs to continue to climb.

But then that is what happens if you require every one to get insurance without also fixing the costs too. The worst of both worlds.

i've been drained dry for something that i seldom use and when i do need something, the copays are prohibitively expensive (like 1500 'copay' for a ct scan?) so i gamble and do without em (x fingers, so far)

Doesn't surprise me. 62% of all bankruptcies are due to high health care costs, 75% of those who went bankrupt due to medical costs had insurance too. The awful truth is that as expensive as the insurance is half the time when you really do need it for something big they'll deny coverage in part or fully and you end up getting screwed.

[aaron]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Does health insurance pay for condoms? As far as I know, the answer is no. Why should women be afforded special rights?

You want to force Catholics to commit sins? While I think they are a crazy lot, their right to be insane is enshrined in the Constitution.

Insurance companies tend to pay for birth control because it is a heck of a lot cheaper than maternity care; plus there will be an extra family member to take care of. The State encourages the use of birth control / abortion because it costs a lot of money to take care of unwanted children. They will also have a higher chance of needing state support all of their lives (in prison, for example).

[c1ue]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I don't know where you're getting, "To say all employers are always wrong is itself wrong." from. You're uh, reading my posts in a very odd way I think.

I get this impression from your ongoing pattern of laying all blame at the foot of the employer. Perhaps it is just this issue, but I don't see any cognizance of the positive that employers bring to this situation.

The reality is that in this present environment of high unemployment, any benefits offered by an employer can be abrogated because employees have far less choice. A truly bottom line seeking employer would be constantly considering the dropping of benefits.

An employer who chooses to stay on the high expense bandwagon of offering health insurance for employees is doing so for the employee's benefit, not their own. Certainly some employers choose to offer health insurance because they feel it benefits employees, who in turn will be better employees.

Were we in a 4% unemployment situation, then the tables would be turned. The employer is offering the benefits in the hopes of retaining/attracting employees.

The point I'm trying to make is that attacking a good faith (so to speak) extension of health insurance by an employer because it doesn't offer everything any possible employee would want is quite one sided.

I've said before, and I say again, that the premise for your attack is flawed as follows:

1) There is no legal requirement that employers pay for health insurance coverage whatsover, much less health insurance coverage of contraception

2) Failure to pay health insurance is not the same as discrimination. You are saying that because the basis for this failure to pay is religious (as opposed to financial), therefore it is discrimination, when in fact if 1) was true, it would mean any employer who fails to pay for health insurance coverage of contraception is discriminating against women.

I'd further note that motive does matter as racial discrimination laws demonstrate, but the problem is that there is no law concerning contraception being broken while there are laws against racial discrimination in employment.

Thus the substance of your argument is that you feel there is some societal obligation for employers to support contraception, even though significant parts of the same society are adamantly against it. That your view of society is prevalent over these other's.

Consensus, even were it to exist on this issue, has no place in American society, at least not the American society described by the Constitution.

I remind you again that we are all theoretically enabled to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the laws we pass are to enable everyone to attain this to the extent feasible under conflicting agendas.

This doesn't mean everyone gets everything they want, how they want it, when they want it.

"He is the bad guy, blame him not me!" probably wouldn't go over as well as you'd think it might since everyone would know you'd canned the health care coverage just because you couldn't deal with a perceived slight upon your beliefs.

As an employer, I can tell you from personal experience that people focus on the one who rocked the boat.

You're trying to say that somehow most employees will focus on the moral inflexibility of the employer, when a particular employee is the specific and proximate cause of them losing thousands of dollars in health insurance benefits because of said employee's inflexibility over something which costs perhaps $200 or $300 a year according to birthcontrol.com

Why does it seem like the Christian Right is always more eager to do battle over issues like contraception and gay marriage than other (mortal) sins?

My view is that it is a flagship problem, much like 'terrorism' is the flagship problem for the US government today.

I also think that most religions, even Catholicism, are more focused on personal belief and action. Gay rights and contraception are brought to the fore in no small part due to the frenetic activity of gay rights activists and pro-abortion (and pro-life) activists in the legal arena.

If you look at it objectively, gay rights and contraception are all linked to the same issue (in opposition) in Catholicism: original sin, with later examples of Soddom and Gomorrah, etc etc.

There are good points in what the Catholic Church says regarding lascivousness, but equally I find abhorrent the persecution of women entering abortion clinics.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Does health insurance pay for condoms? As far as I know, the answer is no. Why should women be afforded special rights?

AFAIK they don't but should given how cheap they are and their function. I too think its silly that women should get their contraceptives paid for but not men.

You want to force Catholics to commit sins?

They wouldn't be committing sin here. FWIW the church appears to be OK this idea so long as its couched in silly semantics:

"All women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services," the official said. "The insurance company will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive coverage free of charge," if the employer objects to providing that coverage in its benefit package.

both Sister Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, and Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, issued statements Friday morning applauding the compromise

Note the insurance costs would go up accordingly to adjust for this so this wouldn't really be "free" at all, the church would still end up effectively paying for contraceptives, just not directly to save face.

edit: Stumbled across this too recently, seems like it might apply here but IANAL:

"It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."

This particular section was written by Scalia who isn't anywhere near a liberal BTW.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I get this impression from your ongoing pattern of laying all blame at the foot of the employer.

OK fair enough I guess. I do tend to rail on employers on these forums, but not because they're "always wrong", its over specific issues.

The point I'm trying to make is that attacking a good faith (so to speak) extension of health insurance by an employer because it doesn't offer everything any possible employee would want is quite one sided.

But contraceptives are widely used...I'm not arguing for something like penis enlargements or whatever to get covered.

Thus the substance of your argument is that you feel there is some societal obligation for employers to support contraception, even though significant parts of the same society are adamantly against it. That your view of society is prevalent over these other's.

There are some who will be against most anything at any time, but current polls show that a large majority exists for having contraceptives covered irregardless of what the employer's beliefs are. Even among Catholics. I know you don't accept polls, but I and most others do, so we're not going to agree on this.

Consensus, even were it to exist on this issue, has no place in American society, at least not the American society described by the Constitution.

So voting isn't a way of society to demonstrate its consensus on a given subject? Yea they're voting for people as representatives...who back and will supposedly implement their ideas

As an employer, I can tell you from personal experience that people focus on the one who rocked the boat.

As an employee I can tell you from personal experience, after having watched several nurses' strikes over the years on things such as "mere" 15 minute breaks, the employer would be viewed as the one who rocked the boat here. edit: Some food for thought:

[c1ue]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

There are some who will be against most anything at any time, but current polls show that a large majority exists for having contraceptives covered irregardless of what the employer's beliefs are.

I am still waiting to see you explain how to reconcile the open expression of religious belief - a practice explicitly protected by the Constitution and American law, in this case concerning the unwillingness to pay for health insurance coverage of contraception, with what the majority wants.

If the majority is truly of the opinion you are stating, there are plenty of avenues for change - including modification of the Constitution by an amendment to subjugate religious expression to the will of the majority.

I personally do not see this type of effort going anywhere, thus indicating that the majority opinion you're espousing is nowhere as strong as you think it is.

Be that as it may, since there are plenty of perfectly legal ways by which to bring about change of the fundamental problem: i.e. the primacy of the majority vs. the legal rights of religious expression.

So voting isn't a way of society to demonstrate its consensus on a given subject? Yea they're voting for people as representatives...who back and will supposedly implement their ideas

I'd think that observing the progress of voting in the past 20 years, whether at the Presidential, Congressional, state, or whatever level would have made it quite clear just how powerful the 'consensus' is. Or isn't.

As an employee I can tell you from personal experience, after having watched several nurses' strikes over the years on things such as "mere" 15 minute breaks, the employer would be viewed as the one who rocked the boat here.

I think the nurse's union is doing what it feels is right; this does not guarantee that what it does is actually right nor that the employer must agree.

If the nurses have the power to force the employer to change via strike, then that is exactly the balance of power in employer/employee relations and I have no issue with that.

Unfortunately most employees don't have legal and certification barriers to entry protecting them like nurses do, thus the employer/employee relationship is far more one sided.

If the employees - female or otherwise - of said Catholic institutions feel strongly enough on this health insurance coverage of contraception issue to stage a strike, they are perfectly entitled to do so. Once again the consensus is irrelevant; the employees even in your own words thus have some ability to influence the employer.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I am still waiting to see you explain how to reconcile the open expression of religious belief - a practice explicitly protected by the Constitution and American law, in this case concerning the unwillingness to pay for health insurance coverage of contraception, with what the majority wants.

Take a look at the SCOTUS quote I posted above in reply to aaron. Essentially in that case and others previous it was decided that open expression of religious belief is protected only up to a certain extent, where those beliefs conflict with others and with the laws of the US they can and will be over ridden so long as the law applies to everyone and doesn't single out specific religions. More context if you like from the same case, note the parts in bold particularly:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. . .

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said. . .are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

If the majority is truly of the opinion you are stating, there are plenty of avenues for change - including modification of the Constitution by an amendment to subjugate religious expression to the will of the majority. I personally do not see this type of effort going anywhere, thus indicating that the majority opinion you're espousing is nowhere as strong as you think it is.

Constitutional amendments are very difficult to do to say the least, you're placing the bar unnecessarily high. Being a student of history you know well and good that change doesn't always come easy or quick too. Look how long labor had to fight to get the 40 hour work week for instance or women had to march and rally to get the right to vote. For better or for worse our government and laws are relatively slow to change compared to society.

I'd think that observing the progress of voting in the past 20 years, whether at the Presidential, Congressional, state, or whatever level would have made it quite clear just how powerful the 'consensus' is. Or isn't.

If a given system is corrupted to the point of being effectively broken then yea surprise surprise you won't see the will of the majority or even minority respected, only the select special few get their views represented.

I think the nurse's union is doing what it feels is right; this does not guarantee that what it does is actually right nor that the employer must agree.

Meh, you're shifting goal posts here over to another topic entirely. I never said that the employees are not able to influence their employers either BTW.

[c1ue]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Take a look at the SCOTUS quote I posted above in reply to aaron. Essentially in that case and others previous it was decided that open expression of religious belief is protected only up to a certain extent, where those beliefs conflict with others and with the laws of the US they can and will be over ridden so long as the law applies to everyone and doesn't single out specific religions.

The problem with what you are quoting is you are attempting to read into it what you want, as oppose to what it says.

As I alluded to before, no religious person can impose their belief on another person. However, there is no such imposition in this case.

To argue that lack of payment for health insurance cover of contraception is imposition of belief is very weak, because the fundamental right to contraception is not being violated.

If in fact contraception was a very expensive affair like hospitalization, an economic argument could then be used, though there would be first a bar where the necessity of the employer to provide said benefit would first have to be demonstrated as well, which then leads to whether said benefit is a legislated right: there is no law anywhere or precedent I am aware of which states that employers must pay for health insurance coverage for contraception.

While contraception for females does cost money, it doesn't cost any more than say the difference in annual spending between driving a gigantic SUV or a passenger car.

Constitutional amendments are very difficult to do to say the least, you're placing the bar unnecessarily high. Being a student of history you know well and good that change doesn't always come easy or quick too. Look how long labor had to fight to get the 40 hour work week for instance or women had to march and rally to get the right to vote. For better or for worse our government and laws are relatively slow to change compared to society.

I agree, the bar is high, but the problem with your other examples is that none of them were explicitly spelled out - either way - in the Constitution.

Freedom of religion is.

Therefore attempts to violate even personal expression of religion both in belief and in practice, especially in the context of government mandated positive action (as opposed to negative action which not paying for health insurance coverage of contraception is) should require such a high bar.

I further note that women's right to suffrage was put into the Constitution as the 19th amendment, and the 24th amendment was passed in response to widespread economic discrimination against African Americans voting, thus clearly the mechanism for modifying the Constitution can and does work.

Meh, you're shifting goal posts here over to another topic entirely. I never said that the employees are not able to influence their employers either BTW.

It is interesting you think so. In your nurse's unions view, some number of 15 minute breaks is worth striking over. How many breaks was this? And what was the actual out of pocket cost equivalent in say, average pay per hour per nurse, per year?

The example I saw in Texas was regarding a paid 15 minute break for every 4 hours worked. Assuming $35/hr and 2000 hours/year - these breaks amount to over $4000 per nurse per year (2000 / 4 / 4 * 35). If this estimate is true, then it is quite understandable why nurses would strike.

The cost of birth control pills as I've noted before is not $1000 a year, it seems closer to $300 and as low as $200, and furthermore it seems well established that the Catholic Church doesn't prohibit the use of birth control pills entirely, it only prohibits their use for contraception.

Thus it seems the focus of this disagreement is entirely over whether Catholic employers should be forced to pay for health insurance coverage of contraception specifically for those women who are in direct violation of the Catholic prohibition against contraception, and not those women who require birth control pills for health issues.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

The problem with what you are quoting is you are attempting to read into it what you want, as oppose to what it says. As I alluded to before, no religious person can impose their belief on another person. However, there is no such imposition in this case.

There absolutely is, you simply refuse to accept any arguments, even legal ones from the SCOTUS apparently, to the contrary. As was noted before we're not going to agree on this, but your position on this subject looks very weak in the face of Scalia's and the SCOTUS's statements.

there is no law anywhere or precedent I am aware of which states that employers must pay for health insurance coverage for contraception.

Actually the health care mandate of the PPACA does just that. That law was passed quite a while ago, its just being phased in slowly over time, which is why this is an issue "suddenly".

While contraception for females does cost money, it doesn't cost any more than say the difference in annual spending between driving a gigantic SUV or a passenger car.

Funny you would say this, most people consider that to be a considerable expense.

I agree, the bar is high, but the problem with your other examples is that none of them were explicitly spelled out - either way - in the Constitution.

There are tons of things that are legal now that aren't spelled out explicitly in the Constitution: its a living document that is subject to interpretation by every new generation that comes a long. Some things that were once considered Constitutional now are not and vice versa, so this is a pretty terrible argument you're making here.

I further note that women's right to suffrage was put into the Constitution as the 19th amendment, and the 24th amendment was passed in response to widespread economic discrimination against African Americans voting, thus clearly the mechanism for modifying the Constitution can and does work.

I didn't say it doesn't work, I said its a very high bar, which you agreed with so why bother to quibble pointlessly over it now? It shouldn't take a constitutional amendment to get a something that the entire society would benefit from like a UHS passed or even just contraceptives covered by all insurers regardless of religious beliefs. The SCOTUS is to be ruling on key parts of the PPACA in a few months too IIRC, so we'll have our answer there soon I think.

It is interesting you think so. In your nurse's unions view, some number of 15 minute breaks is worth striking over. How many breaks was this? And what was the actual out of pocket cost equivalent in say, average pay per hour per nurse, per year?

Haven't got a clue but I can tell you they didn't care how little it was. They formed a strike, the hospital tried to break it with scabs, which didn't work for long since scabs are apparently expensive and they eventually caved to the nurses demands since that was cheaper.

The cost of birth control pills as I've noted before is not $1000 a year, it seems closer to $300 and as low as $200

Actually going by the pic I posted its clearly much higher than $2-300 a year without insurance, and that is without buying the most expensive stuff. Which apparently some women require, not all birth control pills are created equal apparently.

[c1ue]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

There absolutely is, you simply refuse to accept any arguments, even legal ones from the SCOTUS apparently, to the contrary. As was noted before we're not going to agree on this, but your position on this subject looks very weak in the face of Scalia's and the SCOTUS's statements.

The statements you posted, as I understand them, state that the requirements to comply with a specific law - presumably one governing employers - is not in and of itself a violation of the 1st amendment. Note that this does not speak to the legality of the law itself with regards to the 1st amendment.

Thus again I fail to see exactly what you are talking about.

There is no law saying employers must pay for health insurance coverage of contraception.

There can therefore be no employer violation if there is no such law.

Actually the health care mandate of the PPACA does just that. That law was passed quite a while ago, its just being phased in slowly over time, which is why this is an issue "suddenly"

Perhaps you can point out the provision where PPACA states that all health insurance plans must cover contraception, and that all employers must provide health insurance.

PPACA does state that major plans must provide coverage of contraception, but all plans do not have to provide coverage for contraception.

PPACA also does not require employers to pay for health insurance.

It only requires individuals to have health insurance.

You don't seem to understand that this is a perfect excuse for an employer to drop health insurance as a benefit: not only is the economy of scale issue removed with the 'exchanges', but individuals are now personally liable to get health insurance. PPACA has now added a debit to the employee's side in the employee/employer relationship since it imposes an additional cost where none existed before.

So once again, please inform exactly what the rationale is for why Catholic employers must pay for health insurance coverage of contraception?

Funny you would say this, most people consider that to be a considerable expense.

It is a choice, just like so many other fiscal choices.

There are tons of things that are legal now that aren't spelled out explicitly in the Constitution: its a living document that is subject to interpretation by every new generation that comes a long. Some things that were once considered Constitutional now are not and vice versa, so this is a pretty terrible argument you're making here.

I don't dispute that the Constitution doesn't govern everything. However, the Constitution is at least theoretically supposed to govern what is explicitly covered in that set of documents.

I'm still waiting to hear your justification on why a Constitutional right should be ignored.

I didn't say it doesn't work, I said its a very high bar, which you agreed with so why bother to quibble pointlessly over it now? It shouldn't take a constitutional amendment to get a something that the entire society would benefit from like a UHS passed or even just contraceptives covered by all insurers regardless of religious beliefs. The SCOTUS is to be ruling on key parts of the PPACA in a few months too IIRC, so we'll have our answer there soon I think.

You're still refusing to answer the question. In subrogating freedom of religious expression to the consensus of society on contraception, you are explicitly saying that the Constitutional right as spelled out in the 1st amendment is not valid.

However, by US law, so long as the Bill of Rights exists, society's consensus has no right to subbrogate the 1st amendment Freedom of Religion clause unless said clause is modified by Constitutional amendment.

Merely because a bar is high does not give you the right to ignore whether that bar must be crossed because it is inconvenient.

Haven't got a clue but I can tell you they didn't care how little it was. They formed a strike, the hospital tried to break it with scabs, which didn't work for long since scabs are apparently expensive and they eventually caved to the nurses demands since that was cheaper.

$4000 for a $35/hour worker is little? If there is no overtime, we're talking over 5% of income.

Actually going by the pic I posted its clearly much higher than $2-300 a year without insurance, and that is without buying the most expensive stuff. Which apparently some women require, not all birth control pills are created equal apparently.

The data you posted on birth control pills is consistent with the empirical data I posted, except for the high end part and the fact that "doctor's visits" were included in birth control cost. As I noted, the low end is $200 and the average seems to be $300 or $400.

As for cost, well, you can always spend more. Maybe that is a medical necessity, but we've already spoken to the fact that birth control pills in and of themselves are not prohibited by the Catholic Church. Note that even if semantic, there are real and actionable differences between 'contraception' and 'medical treatment'.

[Raz]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

...Thus again I fail to see exactly what you are talking about. ...

I'm still waiting to hear your justification on why a Constitutional right should be ignored.

You're still refusing to answer the question. In subrogating freedom of religious expression to the consensus of society on contraception, you are explicitly saying that the Constitutional right as spelled out in the 1st amendment is not valid.

However, by US law, so long as the Bill of Rights exists, society's consensus has no right to subbrogate the 1st amendment Freedom of Religion clause unless said clause is modified by Constitutional amendment.

Merely because a bar is high does not give you the right to ignore whether that bar must be crossed because it is inconvenient. ...

I have never found it profitable to carry on a conversation with someone who continuously denies the obvious.

"No man is so blind as he who will not see." (Elisabeth Elliott)

You're wasting your time, c1ue.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I have never found it profitable to carry on a conversation with someone who continuously denies the obvious.

"No man is so blind as he who will not see." (Elisabeth Elliott)

You're wasting your time, c1ue.

Its funny, I would say the same thing about c1ue and yourself. This conversation is going nowhere since we can't even agree on what the facts are here, we're stuck in disagreement.

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I have never found it profitable to carry on a conversation with someone who continuously denies the obvious.

"No man is so blind as he who will not see." (Elisabeth Elliott)

You're wasting your time, c1ue.

+1

[vt]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Free condoms are readily available for poor. These women wanting the pill are taking a huge risk by not using condoms with the growth of STDs.

Why does no one mention the payment for protection responsibility of the male partner? There is also a risk to of STDs for the male too. It's only a couple of hundred bucks a year between two people, for a product that can readily be obtained for free from local governments.

This entire charade is a manufactured political ploy to influence a large voting bloc.

[Kadriana]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Free condoms are readily available for poor. These women wanting the pill are taking a huge risk by not using condoms with the growth of STDs.

Why does no one mention the payment for protection responsibility of the male partner? There is also a risk to of STDs for the male too. It's only a couple of hundred bucks a year between two people, for a product that can readily be obtained for free from local governments.

This entire charade is a manufactured political ploy to influence a large voting bloc.

A lot of women who take the pill aren't sexually active. For those who are, there are better forms of birth control, both hormonal and barrier methods, for women to take than the pill. I would say at least half of women who are on the pill are trying to regulate their periods or have some sort of condition that they're treating with bc pills. If you're just not wanting to get pregnant and don't worry about the moral issues associated with chemical bc, then you're probably going to choose something like an IUD, depo, nuva ring or patch where you don't have to worry about taking a pill at the exact same time every day.