Overwhelming cry for lower healthcare costs AND a mandate for providers to give away more products and services at their own expense....doesn't compute.
I would think that the cost savings would far outweigh the cost of birth control. Any healthcare plan that I have ever had has always covered birth control because it costs a lot to have a baby!
I am not anti-contraceptive, I think it is an integral part of family planning and has other valuable advantages in treating conditions unrelated to pregnancy prevention. However, it is the mandate part that bothers me. Some plans cover it in full, some cover it with a copay, and some don't cover it at all. Mandating all carriers to give it away at no cost to the consumer naturally will drive up overall healthcare costs. I also agree with John in the lack of respect for the Catholic Church and the valuable services they provide through their health network. Forcing the Catholic Church to abandon one of the tenets of their faith is clear breach of the First Amendments free exercise clause.
Jeff, how doesn’t providing birth control save insurance companies money?
There’s no fire behind the smoke of this wedge issue. Catholics don’t necessarily follow every rule of the church, we are not fundamentalists. I hear that 2% follow the birth control teachings; I just never met one. There is no lack of respect here; woman should have the right to decide their own health matters. Employers should keep their mouth shut and mind their own business.
Charlie,
The issue is not if Catholics use or do not use birth control, or even if providing it saves companies money. They issue is should the Church be forced by the government to provide the coverage it says is against the Church doctrine, or as an alternative, be forced to drop coverage for its employees altogether.
There are exepmtions provided for the church that exempt those whose primary function is religious. Hospitals and universities that are open to the public and accept public money to function should provide the full range of benefits for women with the one exeption being the "Plan B" morning after pill that is administered after the fact to preclude a possible pregnancy. The "Plan B" does present a real conflict of conscience for Catholics because of its function and could be construed as providing an abortion, however if it is an option a women chooses on her own that is her descision alone. The "Plan B" cost and availability is such that not covering it will not create any hardship or long term out of pocket cost for any women who chooses to use it. As to the birth control using contraception is concerned this is a womens health issue not a moral issue. As a practicing Catholic, I resent the all-male hirarchy of the church making broad pronouncements from the pulpit with little or no consideration for the women who make up the majority of practicing Catholics. It would have been nice to hear the same full throated outrage over the abuse of children at the hands of the clergy and its subsequant cover-up.
Simple answer is NO! Why should birth control be cover by health care plans? Birth control is not about keeping one healthy or prevents illness. People are adults and if, they choose to have intercourse with or without birth control should rely on them. Cost of birth control is not so outrageous that people cannot afford it. It is just waste of health care resources and taxpayer dollars. Birth control is NOT 100% guarantee to stop pregnancies anyway. Birth control for women will not stop sexually transmitted diseases. So, if you are worried about a baby. You should worry about STDs as well.
So the Catholic Church as an employer has the right to cherry-pick insurance coverage for its employees (regardless of whether they might be Catholic) on principle- specific services violate Catholic tenets of morality, even if those services are for hormone regulation unrelated to birth control... Does a corporation, say, General Electric have the right to decide procedures, say, orthopedic surgery is not in keeping with the GE philosophy and will therefor not be covered by GE-provisioned employee policies? Or (to shift things around for the sake of context) what if churches X, Y and Z got together and convinced a significant number of (family-oriented) politicians to re-instate the blue laws- no Sunday (alcohol, among other things) sales?
Not for nothin'- it was really special to have all us guys weigh in on this women's health issue. ...Hope we had our sisters' best interest at heart! Remember, May 13 is approaching; the day we have to let the gals out of the kitchen.
*The first sentence has been edited to abet comprehension.
CM,
The Catholic Church is not denying anyone insurance, and they provide it right now. They object to the government saying to have to add a provision to the coverage that violates their religious views, or be forced to stop providing any coverage at all.
CM, I couldn't agree more. Think of the unintended consequences of allowing a business to exclude medical treatments they deam immoral or not in keeping with thier beliefs. All sexually transmitted, smoking and alcohol related insurance will follow.
Charlie,
Are saying that a business like GM should be mandated by the federal government what services it will provide if it offers health coverage?
And are you saying the federal government should be able tell any religious group what coverage it must provide, or not proved any coverage at all?
Should churches, in this case, be treated the same as business? If that is the case, since businesses can not legally discriminate, are you saying the Church can be forced by the federal government to have woman priests?
The contraception issue within the Catholic church is not so much a moral or faith issue as it is a control issue with a male only hiarchy making descisions for women regarding their conduct. The notion that the religious institutions are under siege by the government is nonsense, the Catholic health system takes billions from the government to operate their hospitals and cover the cost of treating and caring for the poor as well as for medicare coverage. No one is telling any church who it can or must ordain as its ministers, what is mandated is a standard of performance of what is to be provided to employees when it comes to health insurance coverage when operating a commercial enterprise that opens its doors to the public and accepts the publics tax monies to do so.
If one can afford pre-intercourse booze and a post-intercourse cigarette, they should be able to afford protection. If not? Quit drinkin and smokin... you're gonna need diapers. Just MY 2 cents.
Of course John. Health care is a basic human right and our government should mandate coverage for all citizens. We should go back to the drawing board and create a single payer government run system.
I understand we're most of you stand but, this fight against birth control is just another far right mistake. Your candidates are driving off the cliff and it's fun to watch.
The question ..................Should health care plans be required to offer women free birth control? I say no....Why should every one that has health insurance be forced to have that on their policy...It only adds to the cost...Many don't need it or want it..This is the problem with the whole Health Care law..If the government feels that its needed for all the poor women in America ,then give it out at the local plan parenthood...Why force the Church to pay for something they don't agree with.....Any why free,why no copay on that drug, but copays on life saving medicines..I thought this was called the affordable heath care act....Affordable for who...My rates have gone up the last three years since it was enacted..
Let's see how much your rates go up when the pregnancy rate goes through the roof. If your worried about your taxes, you better have a clear understanding of what keeping birth control away from "poor" women means a few years down the road.
But i thought the whole point we were told by Obama was that rates would stop going up and that they would come down some..He said it would save billions of dollars....Just as the City and Counties and Schools are all complaining about mandates causing taxes to go up....The federal government mandates on health insurance companies are causing my rates to go up...My rates were not going up this fast 5 years ago...Like i said let the government hand out birth control at plan parenthood for those that can't afford it...Why should it be free with no copay...When life saving drugs like heart pills have a copay on them....Birth control is not needed to keep someone alive..Heart medicine is......Birth Control pills are covered under insurance now for many but with a co pay..And there is still alot of teenage and unwanted pregnancies...They give out free condoms and we still have all these pregnancies...Does Obama have some fact that if we give out birth control pills for free this will stop...........Is this going to stop abortions.....Will all unwanted pregnancies stop...This should not be a mandate all policies must have... Cmon Charlie birth control is covered now on most policy's with co pays..and i dont see that changing any time soon..So i doubt by not forcing the Catholic Universities to include birth control pills will make pregnancy rate go through the roof........Lets be real here...
Charlie, why are pregnancy rates going to go through the roof unless we provide free birth control for all women? Both the CDC and the USA Today are reporting declining pregnancy rates among teens and all women under 25. In fact, teen pregnancy rates are at a 40 year LOW. The CDC reports declining birth rates among teenagers since at least 2007. Where is this pregnancy boom that you warn about? Your concern for "poor" women is unfounded since Medicaid is already mandated to provide free birth control. The facts just do not support your assertions. Logic would conclude that forcing ALL insurance companies to provide birth control for free when there is no current or foreseeable uptrend in pregnancies will naturally result in higher costs. Increased costs by not providing free birth control is a straw man argument.
Hey Charlie, I am still trying to figure out how birth control is even considered a health issue. How does birth control for women or even men effect one's health or protect against illness? Just because, one uses contraception does not protect one's health. It is what it is, a birth control! If, one is worried about getting pregnant then do not have sex until they are ready. (I know life is all about sex and it is human nature. blah blah blah) What it comes down to is why should HMOs be responsible to cover any of the cost of any contraception? Health care is for one’s health not to pay for peoples’ inability to be responsible such as having sex unprotected or protected. One last thing does women’s birth control prevent any illnesses or one’s health?
If, poor women and men are worry about having babies because, they cannot afford having children. Maybe they should consider one or both of the following; women can tie their tubes or remove their ovaries and men can have a vasectomy. It is a onetime operation and in the long run would cost less.
Contraception is directly related to the health of anyone who is sexually active. Unwanted pregnancies are costly, not just in terms of monetary expense but also in terms of the quality of life for everyone involved.
Should health care companies be forced into providing it? I don't believe they should simply because they're a private company. They'd probably be wiser to offer contraception as part of their coverage, though. In the long run, I think it would be very cost effective for them to offer contraception.
Even if the woman is offered condoms, just having them around means she would be more likely to use them. Using condoms does help to greatly reduce STD's. Reducing disease reduces costs.
On a side note, I've never understood why dental care isn't part of a health care plan. Your teeth are the very first part of being healthy. Good oral hygiene has been proven to help reduce the incidences of heart disease and diabetes. If you lose your teeth, you can't masticate your food and you have to resort to chopping everything with a blender and eating soft foods.
Did I miss something here, were condoms recently outlawed? Why is the pill the only form of contraception now? Who is too poor to take precautions against getting pregnant? Last time I checked, having sex is optional, not mandatory. Therefore along with the privilege of engaging in a consensual act where two adults have agreed they don't want children as a by-product of the act, the responsibility of precautions belongs to both parties.
Why yes, John. The "birth control" pill is beneficial to women's health, and is about much more than contraception - and your comments highlight exactly why men shouldn't be making health decisions that only affect women.
For one, it regulates the cycle for women that experience irregular, long, heavy, or any combination of, periods. Any of these, coupled with an iron deficiency that is present in a great deal of women, leads to anemia. It also brings down the occurence of ovarian cysts to nearly zero chance, and with that comes the benefit of a considerably lower chance of ovarian and endometrial cancers. Diabetic women should also be careful when planning a pregnancy, as their condition may complicate the pregnancy... this allows them to do that.
But enough of me talking... try asking a woman, or a doctor... or try this instead:
Thank you, Tony. A voice of reason in the wilderness.
This is why few women aren't responding to this thread. The men seem to have all the answers. Just ask them.
Bea, you have a point, but most insurance providers are very restrictive in how many viagra tablets they will pay for. I believe they will pay for 6 tablets per month. Another point to consider is who is using the Viagra. Younger males of reproductive age would not normally "need" Viagra for erectile dysfunction. Men who are past the age of reproduction are the typical candidates and even with health coverage, Viagra is still not free.
Viagra costs $80 for a three month supply WITH insurance and through a mail order pharmacy. It would cost at least double the price if the prescription were filled locally. (Don't ask me how I know)
Since the current argument about this subject stems from a Catholic Church official's feigned indignation about morality etc..., I'd like to offer this opinion:
Catholic Church officials don't get to be indignant about ANYTHING until they hand over all of their child-f#@$ing clergymen to law enforcement for trial and incarceration.
Sorry Doug - I didn't mean that in such a blanket sense that everyone shares his opinions. And of course doctors can be men... Dr. Edwards and Dr. Jaeger are good men. For clarification purpose, I meant it in the sense that some men see the non-technical name and assume it only serves one purpose... when it doesn't. And men that don't have wives, sisters or mothers - or practice medicine to know - that don't experience some of these problems will never truly understand it's other uses.
Contraception does not prevent women from receiving diseases or infections. So, the pill will help some women with a couple different issues but, not all. For those few who have that need, fine. What about the morning after pill? Does that have the same results as the pill? Under this health care bill it would be cover and it is nothing more than birth control. I just believe that if one needs to be on the pill for other than purely medical reasons then, it should not rely on HMOs to cover the cost.
"For one, it regulates the cycle for women that experience irregular, long, heavy, or any combination of, periods." I had an ex-girlfriend who suffer from irregular and long periods but, it was not contraceptive pills that regulate her. I will have to contact her and ask what it was but, it was not birth control.
Why is it that liberals want the government to be totally devoid of any and all religious matters and yet want government to dictate to religions how they run their organizations? They certainly don't complain when religious charities pick up the slack in feeding and clothing people in need. Why is it that liberals continue the mantra of "government stay out of my bedroom" and yet want the government to actively participate in population control against the tenets of some religions?
Tony, I was just busting on you about John. I knew what you meant..it's all good.
I grew up in a house with three women and myself in it. All three of them are also nurses. My mother has been an RN for almost as long as I've been alive. She was also in the Army reserves for about 24 years teaching triage nursing. She was the supervisor at Warsaw hospital on night shift for a couple decades as well. My oldest sister has been an RN for a long time..not sure of how many years. My next oldest sister is an LPN.
My grandmother died of breast cancer and my aunt is a breast cancer survivor. I'm sympathetic to women's health to the nth degree.
Liberals are the bane of today's society. It is all about taking what they can get from society and not giving back to society. Liberal = Socialism. HMOs rates are skyrocketing and here we have people who want to give HMOs another reason to jack up rates. Obama Care has already cause my prescription co-pays with my HMO to increase from $25 to $600. Why? Hmmm, may have something to do with covering the FREE medical care of people. Where is this money coming from? Taxpayers but, how many taxpayers are there? Seems like fewer and fewer every year. People will be bitching when they realize that Obama Health Care will cover illegal immigrants and non-U.S. citizens. If a love one is diagnosed with an terminal illness they will get limited health care because, why pay to prolong someone's life?
Well Chris show me where this is incorrect? Obama Care is based on the European Care. I have also, lived over in Europe for many years and have numerous friends and family still there. Unless you have money and can afford better health care. Doctors will not give you the same care and people who cannot afford such care will be given the bare minimum. Obama Care will cover illegal immigrants. Do you think they turn them away now? No, it is a drain on the American taxpayers. This whole Obama Health Care will be a huge drain on the American taxpayers. Until we can regulate what a doctor, pharmacist and medical supply company can charge for their services, we will never have a true handle on health care. The idea doctors become doctors because, they care about their fellow man is not the same for a lot of today’s doctors. Some it is the prestige and the money. There are some who volunteer their services for those in need but, very few in comparisons.
Oh, if you support Obama Care, why? If it is so great, then why does the government not have to deal with it? Why did State Congressmen/women make deals with Obama to help protect their state?
I can care less about how the Catholic Churches feel about this. They are hypocrites anyway. Tony states the following;
“For one, it regulates the cycle for women that experience irregular, long, heavy, or any combination of, periods. Any of these, coupled with an iron deficiency that is present in a great deal of women, leads to anemia. It also brings down the occurrence of ovarian cysts to nearly zero chance, and with that comes the benefit of a considerably lower chance of ovarian and endometrial cancers. Diabetic women should also be careful when planning a pregnancy, as their condition may complicate the pregnancy... this allows them to do that.”
How many women really suffer from these? I know a lot of women and very few take the pill. So, if these issues are so dramatic with women, where are they? The numbers are fewer than what you make them sound to be.
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, birth control pills are used by more than 11 million people all over the world. (World Population? What is it now almost 6 billion?)
According to the medical journal Human Reproduction Update, the benefits of preventing unwanted pregnancy apply not only to families, but to populations as well. People are now able to choose when they get pregnant and when not to, which helps to control the population and prevent excessive resource demands.
Tony its true on what you stated above but, the numbers are very few.
Oh, for those of you that think I do not care about women’s health you are way off base. I worry about my daughter, my mother, my cousin (blood clots developing in brain), a couple friends (one with breast cancer (which she is losing a breast) and one with unknown illness (aka Doctor’s Guessing Game), my co-worker (she is having a difficult time and may have cancer) and my fiancée. So, you can piss off on that noise.
Your numbers are not only wrong... they're less than the total number of women in the United States alone that take "the pill" - let alone the world. They also completely omit IUDs, injections, patches, the ring, implants.
And yes, nearly everything you've written throughout this is factually incorrect. Chris is quite right.
The war in Iraq cost US Taxpayers 3.8 billion dollars per month from beginning until July, 2011. Mandating free bc to women could not possibly cost that much.
And even if it did, look at the benefits, fewer abortions, fewer unwanted babies, and who knows how many less dependents resulting from unplanned pregnancies.
John Woodworth JR, you seem to be fairly literate. I suggest that you read about this scientific study carefully and with an open mind. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.full
Oh Jeff, please tell you did not just write that! Do you realize how many unwanted, un cared for children are in this very state, let alone country? Life is a miracle, yes, but those who create it can often be too selfish, ignorant or cruel to understand that.
These children are not raised, sometimes left, but always neglected. The lines of people that you speak of do not exist, they are just catchy little thoughts for people to sleep easier while they enforce their value systems down on the masses.
I do not believe in government mandates period, but I find anyone organization, regardless if it is a fortune 500, or the Catholic church, who does not cover birth control, or family planning to be archaic.
And by the way, John, the whole Liberals comment? I am a Libertarian, and I find most social conservatives to be an equal bane of this country. Stop telling me what is moral, and live your own life. Stupid comment.
Yes Phil I did just say that because the entire concept of an unwanted child is repulsive. The lines I speak of do exist. There are numerous responsible couples out there desiring to adopt but are thwarted by unreasonable costs and hoops that they are forced to jump through. Adopting a child should not be easy in order to weed out unqualified couples, but it should be far easier and less cost prohibitive for qualified couples than it is. The term unwanted child just makes my blood boil, EVERY child is blessing regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
As a Libertarian how do you square the concept of insurance companies having to engage in poor risk pool management based on what you call archaic ideologies? Sex is either procreational or recreational. When it is procreational, contraception is not an issue. When it is recreational and pregnancy is not desired then responsible people take precautions. In that case contraception is used to cover high risk recreational behavior. In order for that to work in a free market system those in risk pools pay more than those who are little or no risk at all. When insurance companies are compelled to offer birth control free of charge, they are forcing their responsible customers or their customers who are celibate, infertile, beyond child bearing age, etc. to subsidize the recreational activities of everyone else. Not a very Libertarian concept.
Obviously you have the ability to read what I wrote and infer that I said I believe that there should be mandated in providing contraceptives for free, when of course I didn't.
Since your comprehension of my writing includes you own ability to conclude my intentions from thin air, allow me to say this plainly and clearly. My wife pays for her birth control, it is not free, but it is offered. I did not say that they should provide no cost, did I? I said that it should be offered.
The fantasy world that you live in must be wonderful. The thousands of parents must be lost! I mean, that's why we have thousands of state agencies, non for profits and the like that house thousands of kids whose parents have abandoned them. You're right! I'm wrong, these kids are in systems because no one can adopt them.
Debate on this subject need recognize, public AND private funded coverage is being addressed. This is not limited to determining what services patients may avail on taxpayers’ tab; this is government and employers meddling in private, personal healthcare options- determining whether private insurers, doctors and hospitals will provision specific services- services many Americans presume to be covered when they pay their premiums.
A U. S. government sponsored survey determined that birth control pills, synthetic estrogen and progestin, are taken for birth control by 86% women who use them. 14%, 1.5 million women take birth control pills for other reasons: most common, reduction of cramps and menstrual pain (31%), menstrual regulation and prevention of associated migraines (28%), treatment of acne (14%) and treatment of endometriosis (4%). 762,000 women who have never had sex use birth control pills for non-contraceptive purposes. Menstrual related disorders are common among adolescent girls. Of 15 – 19 year-old teens who use the Pill, 33% use it for non-contraceptive purposes. Of those who use birth control pills for contraception, only 67% use them exclusively for birth control.
A list of some (not all) non-contraceptive treatments utilizing birth control pills:
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS): hormonal imbalance causing irregular menstrual periods and excess hair growth.
Endometriosis: endometriosis symptoms include cramps or pelvic pain during the menstrual cycle. Birth control pills stop periods and relieve cramps and pelvic pain.
Amenorrhea: lack of menstrual periods associated with low body weight, stress, excessive exercise, radiation treatment or chemotherapy resulting in depressed levels of estrogen.
Menstrual Cramps: relief of severe cramps and heavy bleeding.
Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS): mood swings, breast soreness, and bloating, along with acne can occur up to 2 weeks before a young women’s period.
Heavy Menstrual Periods: Birth control pills reduce the volume and duration of menstrual bleeding.
Acne: moderate to severe acne due to hormone imbalance.
Getanemia: anemia (low red-cell count) potential for endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and ovarian cysts.
Fact Check:
• Sexually active Catholic women older than 18 are just as likely (98%) to have used some form of contraception banned by the Vatican as women in the general population (99%). (National Survey of Family Growth, 2008)
• Catholics (69%) are as likely as people with different religious beliefs to support medical research using embryonic stem cells left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures: Protestants (74%), other Christians (66%) and the overall population (72%) have broadly similar views. (Harris Interactive, 2010)
• When Catholic voters considered healthcare reform in 2009, and were asked about access to abortion, they supported health insurance coverage for abortion in many circumstances: when a pregnancy poses a threat to the life of a woman (84%); when a pregnancy is due to rape or incest (76%); when a pregnancy poses long-term health risks for a woman (73%); when test results show a fetus has a severe, abnormal condition (66%); and whenever a women and her doctor decide it is appropriate (50%). (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2009)
• Only 14% of Catholics in the US agree with the Vatican’s position that abortion should be illegal (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2009) and a poll released by the bishops themselves in late 2008 showed just 11% of US adults support the bishops’ preferred option: a complete ban on abortion.
In October 2011, the GOP-led House of Representatives, with support and encouragement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Family Research Council, passed H. R. 358, known as the`Protect Life Act.’ Dubbed the ‘Women’s Right to Die Act’ it is essentially a well-constructed effort to purge abortion, emergency-related or otherwise, as a healthcare option.
As noted above, ACA's abortion provisions reflect both an excruciatingly difficult and delicately balanced compromise that was reached during the 2009-2010 health reform debate. Clearly, it was no member's first choice. But, in the spirit of conciliation and in the broader interest of keeping health reform basically intact and on track, we have been willing to stand by the law as enacted.
H.R. 358 would undo this compromise. The overall impact of the legislation--to erode the right of choice that is protected by the Constitution--is far more expansive than the disruption of health reform. In our view, H.R. 358 is part of a larger, broad-ranging effort to restrict women's access to reproductive health services. 19
[Footnote] While we are prepared at this time to continue to support health reform's abortion provisions, we are not prepared to further restrict women's access to this legal medical service. Nor are we prepared, in the guise of a debate over federal funding of abortion, to allow for limitations on the availability of other health services--especially contraception and other reproductive health services. H.R. 358 is designed to achieve both of these goals. As such, we believe the legislation makes significant and overreaching changes in at least the following three ways:
[Footnote 19: See H.R. 3, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act; H.R. 217, Title X [Family Planning] Abortion Provider Prohibition Act; Amendment No. 11 to H.R. 1, Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Congressional Record, H776 (Feb. 14, 2011)) (regarding Planned Parenthood); and Amendment No. 182 to H.R. 1, Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Congressional Record, H786 (Feb. 14, 2011)) (regarding the papillomavirus vaccine) for additional examples of legislative efforts to curtail women's access to reproductive health services.]
H.R. 358 Would effectively shut down the private insurance market for abortion coverage
H.R. 358 prohibits the use of any funds authorized or appropriated under ACA to pay for abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan in an exchange that includes abortion coverage--unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest or is necessary to save the life of the woman. Such funds are defined to include both tax credits applied toward ACA qualified health plans and ACA cost-sharing reductions. This is a wholly new approach to the treatment of private health insurance under federal law.
In effect, these restrictions would preclude any plan offering abortion coverage from accepting any customer who receives any level of ACA subsidization. This would represent the vast majority of the population purchasing private insurance through exchanges. 20
[Footnote]
[Footnote 20: CBO estimates that approximately 63% of all individuals participating in state exchanges will receive some level of subsidized support. (Letter from Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, CBO to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Mar. 20, 2010)) (on line at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/AmendReconProp.pdf).]
The legislation does permit insurance companies participating in an exchange to offer a qualified health plan for unsubsidized individuals that includes abortion coverage, but only under very restrictive conditions. Significant administrative requirements must be met and a company offering a comprehensive plan must also provide an identical plan that excludes abortion coverage. Neither the Health Subcommittee hearings nor the legislation has given any attention to the complex problems of adverse selection and actuarial soundness that such parallel plan requirements pose.
Similarly, H.R. 358 allows individuals and state and local governments to purchase separate abortion coverage--a so-called `rider' policy--so long as this coverage is not purchased using ACA authorized or appropriated funds (including ACA tax credits and cost-sharing reductions). But as the data clearly illustrate, these policies--in the very few states where they are even offered--simply do not work. 21
[Footnote] This point is underscored by the testimony of Mr. Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, who stated at the Health Subcommittee hearings: `Now, there is nothing . . . to stop any private individual from going out and purchasing abortion coverage with their own resources on the private market if they choose to do so. I suspect from the data we have seen that very few people do that [emphasis supplied].' 22
[Footnote] Again, neither the hearings nor the legislation has given any attention to the practical insurance problems that rider plans raise.
[Footnote 21: Insurers Report on Use of Abortion Riders, Washington Post (Mar. 14, 2010).]
[Footnote 22: Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Hearing on H.R. XX, Protect Life Act, 112th Cong., p. 50 (Feb. 9, 2011) (transcript of the proceeding).]
Taken together, then, these provisions establish numerous disincentives for companies to provide abortion coverage as part of their basic plan--they are administratively burdensome, unworkable, and unreasonable. Over and above their practical problems, they put private companies at great risk for exposure both to severe penalties in the case of a violation and to organized boycotts by organizations opposed to abortion. And, by requiring that abortion coverage stand separate and alone from the comprehensive package of services companies currently and routinely offer to their customers, 23
[Footnote] H.R. 358 effectively places a stigma--a bull's eye in fact--on a health service which remains legal in this country and is regarded as medically appropriate by numerous national medical organizations. 24
[Footnote]
[Footnote 23: `The best available evidence--based on studies conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and the Kaiser Family Foundation--suggests that most Americans with employer-based insurance currently have coverage for abortion.' (Guttmacher Institute, Memo on Private Insurance Coverage of Abortion (Jan. 19, 2011)).]
Despite the protestations of H.R. 358's supporters, 25
[Footnote] we believe the net effect of these provisions is, for all practical purposes, to shut down the private insurance market for abortion coverage. Indeed, as Professor Sara Rosenbaum testified at the Health Subcommittee hearing on H.R. 358, `. . . health plans could be expected to exit this optional coverage market entirely [emphasis supplied].' 26
[Footnote] Such a result would mean the end of abortion coverage for millions of women and their families who already have this insurance benefit and for millions of others who would commonly expect it to be part of a comprehensive health insurance policy. In turn, families who may experience the unanticipated event of abortion could face significant out-of-pocket expenses.
[Footnote 25: At the Health Subcommittee markup, Rep. Waxman offered an amendment to set the effective date for H.R. 358 at the time (before January 1, 2014, the effective date of health reform) that the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that the availability of abortion coverage in private health plans for individuals who will not receive ACA subsidies will not be affected. Members in opposition of the amendment argued against its adoption on that grounds that `. . . we see no plausible connection between the availability of abortion coverage in the private insurance market and this pending legislation.' (Subcommittee on Health, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Markup on H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, et al., 112th Cong., p. 87 (Feb. 11, 2011) (transcript of the proceeding)). Supporters of the bill cannot have it both ways--if the legislation does not impact the availability of abortion coverage in the private market, they should be comfortable supporting an amendment requiring the certification of such coverage. Their rejection of the Waxman amendment suggests that those in opposition are at least skeptical of their own assertions about the impact of the legislation on the availability of abortion coverage.]
[Footnote 26: Subcommittee on Health, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Hearing on H.R. XX, Protect Life Act, 112th Cong., p. 37 (Feb. 9, 2011) (transcript of the proceeding).]
H.R. 358 Would undercut the purpose of ACA's essential benefits package
H.R. 358 safeguards state `conscience-protection' laws (also known as `refusal-protection' laws) that speak to health and medical services other than abortion--a broad extension of ACA's state `non-preemption' language. Such laws often refer to specific services that are covered; others are much wider in scope, allowing for great leeway in how they may be carried out. 27
[Footnote]
[Footnote 27: See, e.g., the state conscience protection law for Illinois (745 ILCS 70/3 and 70/11.2) which provides for refusal rights in the case of family planning (and other) health services, and for Mississippi (Miss. Code Ann. Sections 41-107-3 and 41-107-09) and Pennsylvania (40 P.S. Section 991-2171) which allow health care providers, including health insurers, to refuse to provide or pay for any health service as a matter of conscience.]
This far-reaching expansion of current law has enormous implications for the ACA essential benefits package, the contents of which serve as a floor for the coverage that must be provided in any qualified plan offered by an insurance company in a state exchange. 28
[Footnote] For example, under ACA, the essential benefits package may include coverage of contraception services as a minimum standard of insurance. Under H.R. 358, however, an insurance company located in a state with a sweeping refusal-protection statute in place (or one that targets family planning services specifically) could try to drop contraceptive coverage from the essential benefits package under the protection of that state law. Additionally, a state could pass a new law to take advantage of this loophole.
[Footnote 28: ACA Section 1311(3).]
It is unclear whether or not a company would be successful in this kind of effort to chip away at the essential benefits package. What is clear, however, is that--at best--the state conscience protection provisions in H.R. 358 pose a potential conflict with ACA's requirements regarding the essential benefits package and, at worse, they provide a mechanism through which insurance companies could circumvent ACA law. In either case, we believe the result is an upending of one of most important and fundamental features of ACA--coverage of and access to a core set of health care services.
It bears repeated mention that this is clearly not a provision related to abortion. The ACA already prohibits making abortion services part of the minimum benefits package and protects state laws regarding abortion coverage. Despite the bill's misleading title, the legislation is a direct mechanism for allowing state laws to trump benefits decisions in areas other than abortion. 29
[Footnote]
[Footnote 29: House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Markup on H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, et al., 112 Cong., pp. 76-80 (Feb. 15, 2011) (transcript of the proceeding).]
H.R. 358 Would undermine EMTALA's protections for women with life threatening conditions
EMTALA establishes three basic obligations for all hospitals that participate in Medicare: (1) to screen an individual who comes to the emergency department to determine whether the individual has an emergency medical condition; (2) to stabilize any emergency medical condition in individuals in the hospital; and (3) to provide an appropriate transfer to another health care facility in some cases. EMTALA does not recognize any exceptions to these requirements. 30
[Footnote]
[Footnote 30: Social Security Act, Section 1867 (U.S.C. 1395dd).]
H.R. 358 breaks with this structure and inserts language that appears to allow a construction that would place `conscience-clause'/'refusal protection' concerns above those of the emergency stabilization and treatment requirements of EMTALA. The effect of this language is, at best, ambiguous. During the markups on the legislation, Committee staff responded to questions from members about this language and repeatedly noted that it does not amend the underlying provisions of EMTALA. 31
[Footnote] One interpretation of this response is that the basic EMTALA guarantees remain intact and the new language in H.R. 358 is cosmetic only and should result in no change in policy.
[Footnote 31: House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Markup on H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, et al., 112th Cong., pp. 53-54 (Feb. 15, 2011) (transcript of the proceeding); Subcommittee on Health, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Markup on H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, et al., 112th Cong., pp. 76-79 (Feb. 11, 2011) (transcript of the proceeding).]
Another possible interpretation is that this language actually makes `conscience-clause'/'refusal protection' objections predominate over the emergency needs of a patient. 32
[Footnote] If this is the case, H.R. 358 would allow a hospital to assert an objection to abortion and turn away (without referral or appropriate transfer) a pregnant woman whose emergency medical condition requires pregnancy termination.
[Footnote 32: Subcommittee on Health, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Markup on H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, et al., 112th Cong., p. 80 (Feb. 11, 2011) (transcript of the proceeding).]
Sponsors of H.R. 358 claim that this poses no problem since EMTALA already recognizes the needs for emergency examination and treatment of the woman's `unborn child.' This constitutes a deliberate misreading of the statute. The effect of the reference to `unborn child' in the definition of `emergency medical condition' is that a pregnant woman will be considered to have an `emergency medical condition' if her health or the health of her fetus is in serious jeopardy. The only other references to `unborn child' in the statute address the safety of a transfer for a woman in labor.
But certainly EMTALA recognizes special needs during pregnancy and appropriately so. The practice of turning a patient away from a hospital without providing appropriate care (commonly known as `patient dumping') is as repugnant when it endangers a fetus or a newborn just as it is repugnant when it endangers an adult. But there are, in fact, medical conditions that occur during pregnancy in which termination of the pregnancy is one of or, indeed, the only response that will save the life of the woman. 33
[Footnote] It is unfortunately true that the medical needs of the woman and her fetus are not always parallel or consistent.
[Footnote 33: Examples of medical conditions that pose a major threat to maternal health:]
Pre-eclampsia. According to a standard textbook on obstetrics, women with severe pre-eclampsia with a pregnancy of a gestational age of under 23 weeks should be offered the option to terminate the pregnancy. (Steven Gabbe, Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies, Fifth Edition, 2007)
Pulmonary hypertension. The American College of Cardiology and the American Health Association expert consensus guidelines `recommend that pregnancy be avoided or terminated early in women with PAH [pulmonary arterial hypertension].' (ACCF/AHA 2009 Expert Consensus Document on Pulmonary Hypertension: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents and the American Heart Association Developed in Collaboration with the American College of Chest Physicians; American Thoracic Society, Inc.; and the Pulmonary Hypertension Association (Mar. 30, 2009)) (on line at http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/ful1/53/17/1573).
Indeed, religious organizations, seeking to provide guidance to their adherents, have struggled with these issues. A recent and well-publicized case of a pregnant woman with pulmonary hypertension dramatizes the ongoing nature of the problem. 34
[Footnote] Theological debates continue about such topics as `intended' termination of pregnancy, about the `direct purpose' of a procedure or of a `proportionately serious' condition. 35
[Footnote]
But the appropriate venue for such debates is theological circles and ethics committees, not an ambulance or an emergency room. Under current law, if a hospital does not have the facilities or personnel to provide appropriate treatment to a patient, the hospital may nonetheless undertake an appropriate transfer with appropriate informed consent. What is forbidden is abandoning the patient--for any reason.
We believe that one interpretation of the bill's amendment to the rule of construction of EMTALA would allow exactly that result--abandonment of the patient. It would allow a hospital to assert a religious objection to the medically necessary termination of a pregnancy and leave her without rights of transfer or referral.
We want to be clear: No one has identified a problem that this provision of the bill is supposed to solve. Indeed, the Catholic Health Association has told the Congress that it has worked successfully within the current requirements of EMTALA for years and that they do not support this change. 36
[Footnote] Since these hospitals, which have clear objections to abortion services, are living within the terms of the law now, we would expect Catholic hospitals to continue to do so--regardless of whether H.R. 358 gives them the unrequested legal permission to abandon patients. But as Members of Congress who also have a conscience and moral principles, we cannot agree that such permission to abandon patients should be granted in the law.
[Footnote 36: Letter from Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, President and CEO, Catholic Health Association of the United States to Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (Feb. 9, 2011).]
Phil calm down, you just answered your own argument. You say that contraception should be offered to everyone even if it is not free. It already is, they are called condoms and they are widely available at a very low cost. Even people on fixed incomes can afford them. There is also abstinence which is completely free, available to everyone and 100% effective, but I won't even get into that because society has been brainwashed that abstinence is an impossibility, making people out to be animals that have no ability to exercise any semblance of self control.
You stated this "I find anyone organization, regardless if it is a fortune 500, or the Catholic church, who does not cover birth control, or family planning to be archaic." I was addressing the 'archaic' statement from the standpoint of viability for insurance companies and how it doesn't fit with a Libertarian philosophy. Insurance companies don't run nor create policy based on principle, or religion, or even community standards, they run on risk management. The problem lies in that they have abandon that philosophy and created a bloated,false market. Ron Paul has actually talked extensively on this in regards to both healthcare costs and the economy in general. Life insurance is relatively inexpensive, that is because those that pose the greatest risks pay the highest rates and those who pose the smallest risk are rewarded with lower rates. Barring genetics, a healthy lifestyle and personally responsible choices are an incentive. Homeowners insurance and auto insurance are to a degree set up the same but have drifted from that policy. Healthcare insurance looks nothing like that. A person who is fit, exercises, doesn't smoke, drink, or take part in high risk activities pays the exact same rate as the morbidly obese smoker and drinker who is turning his lungs to toast and his liver into a pickle. This is why we go back to those who have no need whatsoever for contraception are forced to offset the costs for those who CHOOSE to use it whether government mandates it or not.
And Frank, women throwing their babies in dumpsters has absolutely nothing to do with insurance companies offering birth control. That has to do with a women/girl who has made a bad and then a worse choice. The analogy is reprehensible.
Tony, that is funny my numbers are wrong. Since, I retrieve that off that Google search you sent me yesterday. So, if my numbers are wrong then your information must be wrong. Yet you fail to show my factually incorrectness.
What this comes down to is the government can careless about expenses. Their main concern in my eyes is population control. Everyone above has argued that cost will be less than other factors (birth of babies, war, etc...)so, if costs are so low in comparison to other alternatives then why make it free? It should be affordable by most families and if not you have government services that give assistance. Plan Parenthood can give condoms out for free so why not leave it to PP to give out free birth control pills. Why, should my health care premium rates go up if, I will never use that service. To say the HMOs won't raise rates is BS. Besides I highly doubt that every women that uses birth control is doing it for a health reason over using them to control when and when not to get pregnant. Judging by all the welfare babies, I am guessing that those women do not use birth control or want it.
The 2010 health care law is not based on what you call the 'European Model.' It is based on what is actually the "Bob Dole' model which later became the 'Mitt Romney' model. Just so you know, I also lived in Europe for several years. You should have paid more attention.
This thing you call 'Obamacare' does not cover illegal immigrants. In fact, on page 143 of the bill that was too long for the people who insist on nonsense like this to read, it states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."
Tony already handled your horrible skewing of the birth control users numbers, so I won't bother with that.
I don't think you don't care about womens' health, I just think you don't know a whole lot about it.
That should just about cover it since it encompasses nearly every word he typed in the last seventeen hours or so.
This debunking of the silly nonsense that spews forth from the keyboards of uninformed right wingers was brought to you by Pfizer, Chinese iPhone slave labor factories, and the wicked Molson hangover that kept me from getting around to it last night.
Mr. Woodworth,
I know of no federal employee that now has to pay $600.00 copay for any prescription, up from $25.00, which you stated is what you have to pay now. Why just you?
John, you really need to stop listening to so much conservative radio. You sound like an echo, only the echo isn't returning verbatim. Do you actually ever re-read what you write and think it sounds okay?
Why must insurance company's offer this with no co-pay...When every other drug you have a co pay....Chances are most poor have some kind of government health care and don't pay any premiums now...So why is Obama forcing insurance company's to provide this for free with no co pay..I haven't heard a good reason yet.....Most elderly who are on a fixed incomes pay alot in co pays for their medicines.....What the difference........
This is an interesting thread, thank you, Jeff Allen, Doug McClurg, John Roach, Charlie Mallow, Ed Gentner, John Woodworth Jr., C.M. Barons, Joseph Bradt, Mark Potwora, Doug Yeomans, Chris Charvella, Tony Ferrando, Frank Bartholomew, Sean McKellar and Phil Ricci....and Beth!
John - Now you're just being willfully ignorant. Do yourself a favor and check dates on things, and read them carefully, before plagiarizing them. There's over 12 million women in the United States alone that take oral contraceptives. There's over 100 million in the world that take them. Not every country in this world has them available. And not every woman in this world, or country, falls between the ages of 15 and 49 to even be considered in the data. Again, you also fail to account for other forms of contraception that perform the same duties.
As of the end of 2011, 58% of all birth controls are prescribed for reasons other than contraception. That's a huge number. Ages 15-24, that number shoots up to 84% that take them for medical reasons. So your assumption that this is for people that are irresponsible is laughable... and yes, birth control regulates womens periods... that's precisely what it does and how it works. There's no questions about it, and it's done exactly that since it was approved for sale in 1963. The most basic form of oral contraceptive provides 21 pills of hormonal supplements, and 7 placebo pills. That's not regulated?
There's many, many forms of contraceptives for women, and women with medical problems are often given different types of them until the desired result is achieved. My wife being one of them. Ovarian cysts bursting are incredibly painful, and toxic to your organs - leading to a multitude of other problems. This is an incredibly beneficial drug for preventative care. You know how much the co-pay is for these drugs? 2 bucks on mine... 5 on my old. We aren't exactly talking a back-breaking amount - these are drugs that have been around so long the patents have expired and generic brands are readily available.
The morning after pill was decided months ago, and is not covered. And besides, it would not have any effect on an egg that was already fertilized. But no, it does not grant the same medical benefits.
Undocumented aliens are not covered in the health care law. A nearly 3 millennium old code (2500 years, to be more specific), called the Hippocratic Oath, covers them. Doctors will not refuse to treat patients because they lack the ability to pay. It's further cemented in this country through already established laws. And frankly, it'd be cheaper to cover them with insurance... because emergency room treatments are always more costly.
And population control...? The numbers are incredibly high for people that willfully already use one type of contraceptive or another. All studies point to either 98 or 99% of all Americans using one form of birth control or another in their lives. We do that ourselves by being responsible. Even the most devout Christians that do not believe in artificial means use natural family planning, and these methods are approved by the Roman Catholic Church.
The issue is not contraceptives or women's rights. The issue is should the federal government be allowed to mandate RELIGIOUS based institutions what they must offer, or be forced to offer nothing. We hear lots about the separation of Church and State, so where is the that line ?
John, then why do all these "constitutional" type issues Conservatives spout always seem to limit the rights of Women or homosexuals? Why do Conservatives feel the need to alter the world based on their sexual morals.
This has really nothing to do with the constitution or freedom of religion, it's really about old men feeling the need to cast judgement on something that is none of thier business.
The new rule that Obama proposed, and has now backed off on, was limited to RELIGIOUS based institutions, saying they had to do something they felt was against their beliefs Or thye had to drop all health care coverage. It had nothing to do with gay rights or anything else. And that is the issue.
"The issue is should the federal government be allowed to mandate RELIGIOUS based institutions what they must offer, or be forced to offer nothing. We hear lots about the separation of Church and State, so where is the that line ?"
The line? It's where the hospital or charity chooses to accept government funds, or chooses to buy insurance off the new insurance exchange and eliminates that "line" themselves by so doing. As soon as they give an affirmative to either, they need to play by the rules. That's all this is (or was). In New York, this is already a requirement. It has not ever been an issue. This is only an issue now because it's an election year. These church-affiliated employers can choose not to buy insurance off the exchange, or self-insure and not adhere to the rules set forth. They certainly aren't short on money to do so without the help of the government that is creating this exchange and setting the rules for what insurers on the exchange are to offer.
What we are seeing here is the pendulum swinging the other way on issues of "separation of church and state". A guy on Twitter put it this way "Same people who cry about need to remove every element of faith from govt are overjoyed that the same govt is intervening in church affairs." If we are going to subscribe to the "get government money, play by the rules" philosophy when it comes to religious institutions, then what happened today just opened the door to all kinds of Government dictates over faith. What if the government decided that circumcision was no longer a valid medical procedure but an archaic religious ritual and threatened hospitals (Jewish and otherwise) with non payment from insurers or withdrawal of federal funding?
Ahh yes, Jeff.... but government already has decided it's no longer a valid medical procedure...... for girls. It's illegal until they are 18. It is a religious activity for Muslims - rightly or wrongly. And that's a growing issue - to stop it for boys as well.
I believe this whole debate was resolved for our county when the former Genesee Memorial Hospital and St. Jerome Hospital merged resulting in United Memorial Medical Center. For those who lack insight into that merger, the tentative (and pre-empted) version was consolidation under the name Genesee Mercy Healthcare, aligning with the Catholic Health System under the auspices of Buffalo's Mercy Hospital. There was immediate debate as to the retrograde impact on women's health services and great relief when a secular solution resulted.
There is a ring of dis-ingenuousness when the conservative voice advances arguments of inappropriate government meddling in private affairs when clearly the aim is to protect equal access to legal, personal health choices. The right-to-life advocates (for lack of a better generic label)- by all measures a minority voice- have been devoting millions of dollars toward legal ploys designed to whittle away at a multitude of women's health options under the pretext of protecting the assumed rights of the unborn. I say 'assumed' because there is no LEGAL pretext beyond assumption. 1973's Roe v Wade decision ruled women have the right to terminate a pregnancy. Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion explained that arguments for fetal personhood failed to present Constitutional or judicial precedent to establish such right.
So the right-to-life advocates have frittered at abortion rights by leveraging every opportunity to insinuate fetal personhood into legislation. The net-result, birth control ITSELF has been put to question.
The hue and cry of politics impelled by right-to-life advocacy is underscored in Rick Santorum's recent declaration that federal tax code is causing the "birth rate to go down and down and down." Santorum's faulty logic and clueless analysis of parenting trends barely overwhelms the vague case he propels. Essentially, he isn't advocating increased birth rates for Latino-, African-, Asian- or Semitic-Americans. Despite his claims to the contrary, he cited "demographic winter," not those who rebutted with charges of social engineering. Adults who choose to have no children or fewer (than parents two-generations-removed) do so for many reasons, chiefly to pursue careers. Prescribing a higher tax deduction for children is not only dismissive of adult choice in the matter; it reeks of a racist cynicism that might better have remained in the candidate's befuddled imagination rather than articulated. Higher education and affluence suppress birth rates; it's a fact. All one need do is reference countries categorized as over-populated and review literacy rate and mean income.
Neither will I deny or argue against those who cite a moral principle when citing objection to birth control- in whatever form.
I defend an individual's right to hold anti-birth control opinions; I also defend individuals with supportive opinions.
When politicians claim one opinion-holder has a right to deprive another opinion-holder of personal choice, a line has been crossed. Throughout the 1980s, while anti-abortion activists were vandalizing clinics and harassing patients, staff and doctors at those clinics, the activists' political counterparts were gutting public funding for abortions. Their rationale: taxpayers who object to abortion should be spared funding the procedure.
According to a recent Gallup poll a mere 20% of Americans think abortion should be illegal. 77% believe abortion should be legal in all, some, or a few circumstances. A February 7th poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute concluded 55% of Americans agree, "employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost.” 58% of all Catholics agree with that statement. Americans against military intervention in Afghanistan ranged from 41% in 2007 to 64% in March 2011. Polling in 2006 revealed 60% of Americans stood against the Gulf War, in contrast to 72% who supported the war in 2003.
Where was the outrage over Americans forced to pay for two wars they did not support?
Interjecting morality police between patient care and the mechanism to pay for it depends as much on guile as it does on a vacuous sense of propriety. It is difficult enough to go under anesthesia next to a tray of cutting implements, no less knowing that politicians are holding a gun to the doctor's back.
!n 2009 alarms rang across New York over closings and mergers implicating adverse impact on women's health. Bellevue Hospital was scheduled to close; proposed mergers of Ellis Hospital and St. Claire's Hospital in Schenectady County, Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center and Mount St. Mary's Medical Center in Lewiston, and Arnot Ogden Hospital and St. Joseph's Hospital in the Syracuse region. Imagine a pregnant woman arriving at a hospital, being diagnosed with preeclampsia and told to go to another hospital because policy restricted the doctor from performing certain procedures.
40 years ago, if church-affiliated hospitals refused to perform certain women's health procedures on moral grounds, the significance would be minimal. Today there are 5754 registered hospitals in the U. S., a drop from 6649 in 1990. In 1970 there were approximately 7500 U. S. hospitals. During the 1980s hospital closings averaged 80 per year. Today religious health care systems are the largest private, non-profit providers of health care in the United States, growing faster than the for-profit facilities. From 1990 to 1997 eighty-four mergers occurred between Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals nationwide. By 1996, five of the ten largest
health care systems were Catholic with net patient revenues for FY 1996/1997 exceeding 7.7% compared to 5.5% for-profit systems. Moreover, in 1998, Catholic hospitals were sole providers in almost 1500 service areas.
If Catholic hospitals are the only option in 1500 service areas, how do women access health care unobtainable at a Catholic hospital? If right-to-life politicians pass laws prohibiting accreditation or reimbursements for healthcare facilities that offer women's health services, where do women go to receive such services? If right-to-life politicians pass laws that prohibit or render unprofitable the offering of insurance coverage for women's health services, where do women go to receive health services?
If it's meddling for government to enforce equal access to health services or insurance coverage for health services... What is it when government limits the health services citizens can access?
Well John I do not know what federal employees you know so, I can only guess you know senior retired federal employees who may be protected. I can tell you I have local HMO which makes me pay $600 dollars before it will help out with my co-pays. Chris Tricare is for military personnel and I civilian.. As far as Tony's numbers being right Chris, you may want to know that came from the site Tony sent me.
Mr. Woodworth wrote, "..... Tricare is for military personnel and I civilian."
Please correct my understanding. Didn't I read somewhere that " ......So, my advise is stop being so blind and naive to the real threat. Beside I worry about more than you will. Afterall I am the one that carries the rifle and defends your arse."
So he is a civilian, not military, and " ........So, my advise is stop being so blind and naive to the real threat. Beside I worry about more than you will. Afterall I am the one that carries the rifle and defends your arse."
I'm sorry he has such lousy coverage for such an important job.
Religious freedom is at the very foundation of what this nation stands for. Your argument about how many Catholic women use birth control is moot, in that, how many Baptist do you know that drink, plenty. How many United Methodist go to the downs? More than most people realize.
Our constitution IS NOT based on what rights we have, it is based on what rights the Government DOES NOT HAVE, a fundemental that most seem to forget.
If the Catholic Church funds a church, school, charity, IT IS A CATHOLIC organization, therefore protected from the government.
In the past few years, we are letting the protections of the US Constitution slip away, for the sake of percieved rights.
Mark, freedom has nothing to do with giving a bunch of appointed old men the right to control the reproductive rights of a woman who works for them. That's a sickening abuse of religious "freedom" and no employer should take such liberties. Your religion is your own business and employers can't descriminate based on religion. Therefore an employer has no right to impose thier religious doctrine on an employee. An employee has free will to practice what ever religion they choose.
There are religions that do not believe in any medical care at all. Should companies have the right to eliminate all health care benefits because they decide to adopt those beliefs? Should the rest of us then be forced to pay for medical coverage for their employees as well? The problem is anyone can go to the hospital and not pay because those costs will be rolled into higher costs for the rest of us. That's why our premiums rise every year. The millions of uninsured or under insured are bleeding us dry. The system as it is doesn't work. Our society will never turn down medical coverage to anyone so, it's time to live with that reality. It's about economics, not some stupid notion of freedom.
Depends what the word freedom means to you? Freedom to me means my employer doesn't dictate my religions beliefs or my personal medical decisions. Now the compromise means we are left with the costs being spread around to the rest of us.
But you are OK with the government dictating to your religion? By your reasoning, the government should dictate that the Catholic Church must have women priests since not doing so is discrimination (I think they should, but do not want Obama telling them they have to).
The fact is that not all the churches employees are Catholic and even those that are have the right to determine their own health care decisions. That’s freedom. People who chose to follow every rule of the church are also not having contraception forced on them. So exactly where is the loss of Religious freedom? I was taught (in Catholic school by the way) people have free will to do right or wrong. It’s the choices you make that matter. The church providing standard coverage has nothing to do with their teachings.
The fact is that the employees pick to work for catholic institutions. They know what benefits are offered and know that based on church religious doctrine, birth control is not offered. Nobody forced them to work for the church.
John, the new reality is that everyone is being given a standard coverage. If certain companies are given an out, the rest of us will pay higher premiums to cover their employees. By your standard any employer can remove any treatment and then by default, force those costs down on the rest of us. Adding religion and birth control to the debate was a convenient political move, nothing more. It doesn’t change the reality.
Nancy Pelosi Rips GOP Over Birth Control: I May Be 'Moved To Explain Biology To My Colleagues'
"Five men are testifying on women's health," Pelosi said. "Where are the women? Imagine having a panel on women's health and they don't have any women on the panel."
I'd just like to jump back into this thread for a moment to reiterate my point about the tragic irony of Catholic Church leadership feigning outrage over birth control while they shield child raping priests from prosecution.
Any moral argument from this institution lacks credibility and will continue to lack credibility until the day they de-frock their criminal priests and hand them over to the proper authorities for trial.
Charlie,
Mandatory free birth control, like free Viagra, for working people, is just not right.
While I don't think it is the business of government to tell churches or companies like yours what they have to, or don't have to, cover, I wouldn't mind it as much if it was a required option for non religious businesses that the employee could decide to buy or not buy birth control coverage. But mandatory "free" is too much. What's next,mandatory "free" foot care?
Of course nothing is "free" and you know it. The insurance companies just pass on their cost to all of us in the form of higher premiums, like they will in this case. We are going to buy the "free" birth control for them.
Makes you ask where does the government draw the line on telling us what to do. We just had a government agent tell a little school girl her mother's home made lunch did not meet lunchroom standards and then bill the family for approved government food. But then, it's just a "stupid notion of freedom", right?
You know what would finish this silly/strawman/culture war/bullshit/wag the dog argument immediately? Single payer health insurance. Birth control against your religion? Don't use it. Problem effing solved.
While it makes people, like John, feel good to say that insurance premiums would rise, the real truth is that giving away birth control pills would save the insurance companies money in the end.
Covering a pregnancy is expensive.
Covering an abortion is expensive.
Covering related medical issues associated with either is expensive.
Giving away a product that would save the companies the expense of either is a win/win for them.
Bea,
The companies are already raising rates to pay for "free" mandatory coverage. And while they might save money in the long run, anyone paying insurance premiums will pay for the free stuff. They save and we pay.
Who does Bea think will be paying for this "free stuff"? Do you really think the are "giving away" a product? Really?
They will write it off. Most likely from their promotion budget. Are you saying you never receive samples from the doctor? Did you accept that free stuff or did you insist on paying for it?
If your rates are going up, it isn't because of a small percentage of 'give away' items and certainly not from birth control, especially generic.
Yea, right. They are forced to provide something for "free" and will not pass the cost on. Out of the goodness of their hearts, they are going to write it off, take the loss and not make us pay for it.
John, I'm pretty sure insurance companies prefer birth control usage. Remember these companies are looking to make a profit. Only out of touch Republicans think this is a winning issue.
I'm calling the election now for Obama, mark the date and time, its going to be a landslide.
Overwhelming cry for lower
Overwhelming cry for lower healthcare costs AND a mandate for providers to give away more products and services at their own expense....doesn't compute.
My government should give
My government should give away birth control on every corner...Think of the logistics
I would think that the cost
I would think that the cost savings would far outweigh the cost of birth control. Any healthcare plan that I have ever had has always covered birth control because it costs a lot to have a baby!
I agree with Jeff. And to
I agree with Jeff. And to force employers, like the Catholic Church, to offer any particular coverage is wrong.
I am not anti-contraceptive,
I am not anti-contraceptive, I think it is an integral part of family planning and has other valuable advantages in treating conditions unrelated to pregnancy prevention. However, it is the mandate part that bothers me. Some plans cover it in full, some cover it with a copay, and some don't cover it at all. Mandating all carriers to give it away at no cost to the consumer naturally will drive up overall healthcare costs. I also agree with John in the lack of respect for the Catholic Church and the valuable services they provide through their health network. Forcing the Catholic Church to abandon one of the tenets of their faith is clear breach of the First Amendments free exercise clause.
Jeff, how doesn’t providing
Jeff, how doesn’t providing birth control save insurance companies money?
There’s no fire behind the smoke of this wedge issue. Catholics don’t necessarily follow every rule of the church, we are not fundamentalists. I hear that 2% follow the birth control teachings; I just never met one. There is no lack of respect here; woman should have the right to decide their own health matters. Employers should keep their mouth shut and mind their own business.
Charlie, The issue is not if
Charlie,
The issue is not if Catholics use or do not use birth control, or even if providing it saves companies money. They issue is should the Church be forced by the government to provide the coverage it says is against the Church doctrine, or as an alternative, be forced to drop coverage for its employees altogether.
There are exepmtions provided
There are exepmtions provided for the church that exempt those whose primary function is religious. Hospitals and universities that are open to the public and accept public money to function should provide the full range of benefits for women with the one exeption being the "Plan B" morning after pill that is administered after the fact to preclude a possible pregnancy. The "Plan B" does present a real conflict of conscience for Catholics because of its function and could be construed as providing an abortion, however if it is an option a women chooses on her own that is her descision alone. The "Plan B" cost and availability is such that not covering it will not create any hardship or long term out of pocket cost for any women who chooses to use it. As to the birth control using contraception is concerned this is a womens health issue not a moral issue. As a practicing Catholic, I resent the all-male hirarchy of the church making broad pronouncements from the pulpit with little or no consideration for the women who make up the majority of practicing Catholics. It would have been nice to hear the same full throated outrage over the abuse of children at the hands of the clergy and its subsequant cover-up.
Wish I could like that again
Wish I could like that again Ed.
Simple answer is NO! Why
Simple answer is NO! Why should birth control be cover by health care plans? Birth control is not about keeping one healthy or prevents illness. People are adults and if, they choose to have intercourse with or without birth control should rely on them. Cost of birth control is not so outrageous that people cannot afford it. It is just waste of health care resources and taxpayer dollars. Birth control is NOT 100% guarantee to stop pregnancies anyway. Birth control for women will not stop sexually transmitted diseases. So, if you are worried about a baby. You should worry about STDs as well.
....and yet there is never a
....and yet there is never a peep about insurance companies covering Viagra and like products.
Well Bea, I did not know
Well Bea, I did not know Viagra is covered by health care. Did not know Viagra was a birth control.
So the Catholic Church as an
So the Catholic Church as an employer has the right to cherry-pick insurance coverage for its employees (regardless of whether they might be Catholic) on principle- specific services violate Catholic tenets of morality, even if those services are for hormone regulation unrelated to birth control... Does a corporation, say, General Electric have the right to decide procedures, say, orthopedic surgery is not in keeping with the GE philosophy and will therefor not be covered by GE-provisioned employee policies? Or (to shift things around for the sake of context) what if churches X, Y and Z got together and convinced a significant number of (family-oriented) politicians to re-instate the blue laws- no Sunday (alcohol, among other things) sales?
Not for nothin'- it was really special to have all us guys weigh in on this women's health issue. ...Hope we had our sisters' best interest at heart! Remember, May 13 is approaching; the day we have to let the gals out of the kitchen.
*The first sentence has been edited to abet comprehension.
CM, The Catholic Church is
CM,
The Catholic Church is not denying anyone insurance, and they provide it right now. They object to the government saying to have to add a provision to the coverage that violates their religious views, or be forced to stop providing any coverage at all.
CM, I couldn't agree more.
CM, I couldn't agree more. Think of the unintended consequences of allowing a business to exclude medical treatments they deam immoral or not in keeping with thier beliefs. All sexually transmitted, smoking and alcohol related insurance will follow.
Charlie, Are saying that a
Charlie,
Are saying that a business like GM should be mandated by the federal government what services it will provide if it offers health coverage?
And are you saying the federal government should be able tell any religious group what coverage it must provide, or not proved any coverage at all?
Should churches, in this case, be treated the same as business? If that is the case, since businesses can not legally discriminate, are you saying the Church can be forced by the federal government to have woman priests?
The contraception issue
The contraception issue within the Catholic church is not so much a moral or faith issue as it is a control issue with a male only hiarchy making descisions for women regarding their conduct. The notion that the religious institutions are under siege by the government is nonsense, the Catholic health system takes billions from the government to operate their hospitals and cover the cost of treating and caring for the poor as well as for medicare coverage. No one is telling any church who it can or must ordain as its ministers, what is mandated is a standard of performance of what is to be provided to employees when it comes to health insurance coverage when operating a commercial enterprise that opens its doors to the public and accepts the publics tax monies to do so.
If one can afford
If one can afford pre-intercourse booze and a post-intercourse cigarette, they should be able to afford protection. If not? Quit drinkin and smokin... you're gonna need diapers. Just MY 2 cents.
Of course John. Health care
Of course John. Health care is a basic human right and our government should mandate coverage for all citizens. We should go back to the drawing board and create a single payer government run system.
I understand we're most of you stand but, this fight against birth control is just another far right mistake. Your candidates are driving off the cliff and it's fun to watch.
The question
The question ..................Should health care plans be required to offer women free birth control? I say no....Why should every one that has health insurance be forced to have that on their policy...It only adds to the cost...Many don't need it or want it..This is the problem with the whole Health Care law..If the government feels that its needed for all the poor women in America ,then give it out at the local plan parenthood...Why force the Church to pay for something they don't agree with.....Any why free,why no copay on that drug, but copays on life saving medicines..I thought this was called the affordable heath care act....Affordable for who...My rates have gone up the last three years since it was enacted..
Let's see how much your rates
Let's see how much your rates go up when the pregnancy rate goes through the roof. If your worried about your taxes, you better have a clear understanding of what keeping birth control away from "poor" women means a few years down the road.
Mark, your rates have gone up
Mark, your rates have gone up the last three years since it was enacted? And pretty much every year prior to that also.
But i thought the whole point
But i thought the whole point we were told by Obama was that rates would stop going up and that they would come down some..He said it would save billions of dollars....Just as the City and Counties and Schools are all complaining about mandates causing taxes to go up....The federal government mandates on health insurance companies are causing my rates to go up...My rates were not going up this fast 5 years ago...Like i said let the government hand out birth control at plan parenthood for those that can't afford it...Why should it be free with no copay...When life saving drugs like heart pills have a copay on them....Birth control is not needed to keep someone alive..Heart medicine is......Birth Control pills are covered under insurance now for many but with a co pay..And there is still alot of teenage and unwanted pregnancies...They give out free condoms and we still have all these pregnancies...Does Obama have some fact that if we give out birth control pills for free this will stop...........Is this going to stop abortions.....Will all unwanted pregnancies stop...This should not be a mandate all policies must have... Cmon Charlie birth control is covered now on most policy's with co pays..and i dont see that changing any time soon..So i doubt by not forcing the Catholic Universities to include birth control pills will make pregnancy rate go through the roof........Lets be real here...
Charlie, why are pregnancy
Charlie, why are pregnancy rates going to go through the roof unless we provide free birth control for all women? Both the CDC and the USA Today are reporting declining pregnancy rates among teens and all women under 25. In fact, teen pregnancy rates are at a 40 year LOW. The CDC reports declining birth rates among teenagers since at least 2007. Where is this pregnancy boom that you warn about? Your concern for "poor" women is unfounded since Medicaid is already mandated to provide free birth control. The facts just do not support your assertions. Logic would conclude that forcing ALL insurance companies to provide birth control for free when there is no current or foreseeable uptrend in pregnancies will naturally result in higher costs. Increased costs by not providing free birth control is a straw man argument.
Hey Charlie, I am still
Hey Charlie, I am still trying to figure out how birth control is even considered a health issue. How does birth control for women or even men effect one's health or protect against illness? Just because, one uses contraception does not protect one's health. It is what it is, a birth control! If, one is worried about getting pregnant then do not have sex until they are ready. (I know life is all about sex and it is human nature. blah blah blah) What it comes down to is why should HMOs be responsible to cover any of the cost of any contraception? Health care is for one’s health not to pay for peoples’ inability to be responsible such as having sex unprotected or protected. One last thing does women’s birth control prevent any illnesses or one’s health?
If, poor women and men are
If, poor women and men are worry about having babies because, they cannot afford having children. Maybe they should consider one or both of the following; women can tie their tubes or remove their ovaries and men can have a vasectomy. It is a onetime operation and in the long run would cost less.
Contraception is directly
Contraception is directly related to the health of anyone who is sexually active. Unwanted pregnancies are costly, not just in terms of monetary expense but also in terms of the quality of life for everyone involved.
Should health care companies be forced into providing it? I don't believe they should simply because they're a private company. They'd probably be wiser to offer contraception as part of their coverage, though. In the long run, I think it would be very cost effective for them to offer contraception.
Even if the woman is offered condoms, just having them around means she would be more likely to use them. Using condoms does help to greatly reduce STD's. Reducing disease reduces costs.
On a side note, I've never understood why dental care isn't part of a health care plan. Your teeth are the very first part of being healthy. Good oral hygiene has been proven to help reduce the incidences of heart disease and diabetes. If you lose your teeth, you can't masticate your food and you have to resort to chopping everything with a blender and eating soft foods.
More words of wisdom from
More words of wisdom from John Woodworth.....
Should I bother? Yeah, what the hell.
How, pray tell, would a person who is too poor to be able to afford contraceptives in pill form afford hysterectomy or vasectomy surgery?
And for the record John, no
And for the record John, no doctor in the world, at least the civilized part of the world, would remove a woman's ovaries as a form of birth control.
Did I miss something here,
Did I miss something here, were condoms recently outlawed? Why is the pill the only form of contraception now? Who is too poor to take precautions against getting pregnant? Last time I checked, having sex is optional, not mandatory. Therefore along with the privilege of engaging in a consensual act where two adults have agreed they don't want children as a by-product of the act, the responsibility of precautions belongs to both parties.
Why yes, John. The "birth
Why yes, John. The "birth control" pill is beneficial to women's health, and is about much more than contraception - and your comments highlight exactly why men shouldn't be making health decisions that only affect women.
For one, it regulates the cycle for women that experience irregular, long, heavy, or any combination of, periods. Any of these, coupled with an iron deficiency that is present in a great deal of women, leads to anemia. It also brings down the occurence of ovarian cysts to nearly zero chance, and with that comes the benefit of a considerably lower chance of ovarian and endometrial cancers. Diabetic women should also be careful when planning a pregnancy, as their condition may complicate the pregnancy... this allows them to do that.
But enough of me talking... try asking a woman, or a doctor... or try this instead:
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=medical+benefits+of+taking+birth+control+pills
LOL Beth. I'm glad removing
LOL Beth. I'm glad removing a man's testicles is not part of birth control surgery.
Thank you, Tony. A voice of
Thank you, Tony. A voice of reason in the wilderness.
This is why few women aren't responding to this thread. The men seem to have all the answers. Just ask them.
"men shouldn't be making
"men shouldn't be making health decisions that only affect women.."
What? Seriously? You do realize that there are plenty of male doctors who help women make decisions about their health choices, right?
I don't think you meant to say that John speaks for the majority of males around here..lol.
Why isn't life saving
Why isn't life saving medicine such as heart medication offered free with no copay such as the birth control or the abortion morning after pill..
Bea, you have a point, but
Bea, you have a point, but most insurance providers are very restrictive in how many viagra tablets they will pay for. I believe they will pay for 6 tablets per month. Another point to consider is who is using the Viagra. Younger males of reproductive age would not normally "need" Viagra for erectile dysfunction. Men who are past the age of reproduction are the typical candidates and even with health coverage, Viagra is still not free.
Viagra costs $80 for a three month supply WITH insurance and through a mail order pharmacy. It would cost at least double the price if the prescription were filled locally. (Don't ask me how I know)
The "morning after" pill
The "morning after" pill isn't an abortion pill. It prevents pregnancy and does not abort a conception.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-…
Since the current argument
Since the current argument about this subject stems from a Catholic Church official's feigned indignation about morality etc..., I'd like to offer this opinion:
Catholic Church officials don't get to be indignant about ANYTHING until they hand over all of their child-f#@$ing clergymen to law enforcement for trial and incarceration.
Sorry Doug - I didn't mean
Sorry Doug - I didn't mean that in such a blanket sense that everyone shares his opinions. And of course doctors can be men... Dr. Edwards and Dr. Jaeger are good men. For clarification purpose, I meant it in the sense that some men see the non-technical name and assume it only serves one purpose... when it doesn't. And men that don't have wives, sisters or mothers - or practice medicine to know - that don't experience some of these problems will never truly understand it's other uses.
Thanks for pointing out the error in my post.
(No subject)
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8]
Contraception does not
Contraception does not prevent women from receiving diseases or infections. So, the pill will help some women with a couple different issues but, not all. For those few who have that need, fine. What about the morning after pill? Does that have the same results as the pill? Under this health care bill it would be cover and it is nothing more than birth control. I just believe that if one needs to be on the pill for other than purely medical reasons then, it should not rely on HMOs to cover the cost.
"For one, it regulates the cycle for women that experience irregular, long, heavy, or any combination of, periods." I had an ex-girlfriend who suffer from irregular and long periods but, it was not contraceptive pills that regulate her. I will have to contact her and ask what it was but, it was not birth control.
Sorry Chris I thought it was
Sorry Chris I thought it was clear that if HMOs are to cover the morning after, pill, etc.. Then the HMOs could be responsible to cover the surgeries.
Why is it that liberals want
Why is it that liberals want the government to be totally devoid of any and all religious matters and yet want government to dictate to religions how they run their organizations? They certainly don't complain when religious charities pick up the slack in feeding and clothing people in need. Why is it that liberals continue the mantra of "government stay out of my bedroom" and yet want the government to actively participate in population control against the tenets of some religions?
Tony, I was just busting on
Tony, I was just busting on you about John. I knew what you meant..it's all good.
I grew up in a house with three women and myself in it. All three of them are also nurses. My mother has been an RN for almost as long as I've been alive. She was also in the Army reserves for about 24 years teaching triage nursing. She was the supervisor at Warsaw hospital on night shift for a couple decades as well. My oldest sister has been an RN for a long time..not sure of how many years. My next oldest sister is an LPN.
My grandmother died of breast cancer and my aunt is a breast cancer survivor. I'm sympathetic to women's health to the nth degree.
Liberals are the bane of
Liberals are the bane of today's society. It is all about taking what they can get from society and not giving back to society. Liberal = Socialism. HMOs rates are skyrocketing and here we have people who want to give HMOs another reason to jack up rates. Obama Care has already cause my prescription co-pays with my HMO to increase from $25 to $600. Why? Hmmm, may have something to do with covering the FREE medical care of people. Where is this money coming from? Taxpayers but, how many taxpayers are there? Seems like fewer and fewer every year. People will be bitching when they realize that Obama Health Care will cover illegal immigrants and non-U.S. citizens. If a love one is diagnosed with an terminal illness they will get limited health care because, why pay to prolong someone's life?
Wow, nearly everything in the
Wow, nearly everything in the comment above this one is factually inaccurate. Well done.
Well Chris show me where this
Well Chris show me where this is incorrect? Obama Care is based on the European Care. I have also, lived over in Europe for many years and have numerous friends and family still there. Unless you have money and can afford better health care. Doctors will not give you the same care and people who cannot afford such care will be given the bare minimum. Obama Care will cover illegal immigrants. Do you think they turn them away now? No, it is a drain on the American taxpayers. This whole Obama Health Care will be a huge drain on the American taxpayers. Until we can regulate what a doctor, pharmacist and medical supply company can charge for their services, we will never have a true handle on health care. The idea doctors become doctors because, they care about their fellow man is not the same for a lot of today’s doctors. Some it is the prestige and the money. There are some who volunteer their services for those in need but, very few in comparisons.
Oh, if you support Obama
Oh, if you support Obama Care, why? If it is so great, then why does the government not have to deal with it? Why did State Congressmen/women make deals with Obama to help protect their state?
I can care less about how the
I can care less about how the Catholic Churches feel about this. They are hypocrites anyway. Tony states the following;
“For one, it regulates the cycle for women that experience irregular, long, heavy, or any combination of, periods. Any of these, coupled with an iron deficiency that is present in a great deal of women, leads to anemia. It also brings down the occurrence of ovarian cysts to nearly zero chance, and with that comes the benefit of a considerably lower chance of ovarian and endometrial cancers. Diabetic women should also be careful when planning a pregnancy, as their condition may complicate the pregnancy... this allows them to do that.”
How many women really suffer from these? I know a lot of women and very few take the pill. So, if these issues are so dramatic with women, where are they? The numbers are fewer than what you make them sound to be.
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, birth control pills are used by more than 11 million people all over the world. (World Population? What is it now almost 6 billion?)
According to the medical journal Human Reproduction Update, the benefits of preventing unwanted pregnancy apply not only to families, but to populations as well. People are now able to choose when they get pregnant and when not to, which helps to control the population and prevent excessive resource demands.
Tony its true on what you stated above but, the numbers are very few.
Oh, for those of you that think I do not care about women’s health you are way off base. I worry about my daughter, my mother, my cousin (blood clots developing in brain), a couple friends (one with breast cancer (which she is losing a breast) and one with unknown illness (aka Doctor’s Guessing Game), my co-worker (she is having a difficult time and may have cancer) and my fiancée. So, you can piss off on that noise.
Your numbers are not only
Your numbers are not only wrong... they're less than the total number of women in the United States alone that take "the pill" - let alone the world. They also completely omit IUDs, injections, patches, the ring, implants.
And yes, nearly everything you've written throughout this is factually incorrect. Chris is quite right.
The war in Iraq cost US
The war in Iraq cost US Taxpayers 3.8 billion dollars per month from beginning until July, 2011. Mandating free bc to women could not possibly cost that much.
And even if it did, look at the benefits, fewer abortions, fewer unwanted babies, and who knows how many less dependents resulting from unplanned pregnancies.
John Woodworth JR, you seem
John Woodworth JR, you seem to be fairly literate. I suggest that you read about this scientific study carefully and with an open mind.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.full
And Chris Charvella, I like the cut of your jib.
Frank, there is no such thing
Frank, there is no such thing as an unwanted baby, only obstacles that get in the way of those babies and couples that want them.
Oh Jeff, please tell you did
Oh Jeff, please tell you did not just write that! Do you realize how many unwanted, un cared for children are in this very state, let alone country? Life is a miracle, yes, but those who create it can often be too selfish, ignorant or cruel to understand that.
These children are not raised, sometimes left, but always neglected. The lines of people that you speak of do not exist, they are just catchy little thoughts for people to sleep easier while they enforce their value systems down on the masses.
I do not believe in government mandates period, but I find anyone organization, regardless if it is a fortune 500, or the Catholic church, who does not cover birth control, or family planning to be archaic.
And by the way, John, the whole Liberals comment? I am a Libertarian, and I find most social conservatives to be an equal bane of this country. Stop telling me what is moral, and live your own life. Stupid comment.
Yes Phil I did just say that
Yes Phil I did just say that because the entire concept of an unwanted child is repulsive. The lines I speak of do exist. There are numerous responsible couples out there desiring to adopt but are thwarted by unreasonable costs and hoops that they are forced to jump through. Adopting a child should not be easy in order to weed out unqualified couples, but it should be far easier and less cost prohibitive for qualified couples than it is. The term unwanted child just makes my blood boil, EVERY child is blessing regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
As a Libertarian how do you square the concept of insurance companies having to engage in poor risk pool management based on what you call archaic ideologies? Sex is either procreational or recreational. When it is procreational, contraception is not an issue. When it is recreational and pregnancy is not desired then responsible people take precautions. In that case contraception is used to cover high risk recreational behavior. In order for that to work in a free market system those in risk pools pay more than those who are little or no risk at all. When insurance companies are compelled to offer birth control free of charge, they are forcing their responsible customers or their customers who are celibate, infertile, beyond child bearing age, etc. to subsidize the recreational activities of everyone else. Not a very Libertarian concept.
Obviously you have the
Obviously you have the ability to read what I wrote and infer that I said I believe that there should be mandated in providing contraceptives for free, when of course I didn't.
Since your comprehension of my writing includes you own ability to conclude my intentions from thin air, allow me to say this plainly and clearly. My wife pays for her birth control, it is not free, but it is offered. I did not say that they should provide no cost, did I? I said that it should be offered.
The fantasy world that you live in must be wonderful. The thousands of parents must be lost! I mean, that's why we have thousands of state agencies, non for profits and the like that house thousands of kids whose parents have abandoned them. You're right! I'm wrong, these kids are in systems because no one can adopt them.
Debate on this subject need
Debate on this subject need recognize, public AND private funded coverage is being addressed. This is not limited to determining what services patients may avail on taxpayers’ tab; this is government and employers meddling in private, personal healthcare options- determining whether private insurers, doctors and hospitals will provision specific services- services many Americans presume to be covered when they pay their premiums.
A U. S. government sponsored survey determined that birth control pills, synthetic estrogen and progestin, are taken for birth control by 86% women who use them. 14%, 1.5 million women take birth control pills for other reasons: most common, reduction of cramps and menstrual pain (31%), menstrual regulation and prevention of associated migraines (28%), treatment of acne (14%) and treatment of endometriosis (4%). 762,000 women who have never had sex use birth control pills for non-contraceptive purposes. Menstrual related disorders are common among adolescent girls. Of 15 – 19 year-old teens who use the Pill, 33% use it for non-contraceptive purposes. Of those who use birth control pills for contraception, only 67% use them exclusively for birth control.
A list of some (not all) non-contraceptive treatments utilizing birth control pills:
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS): hormonal imbalance causing irregular menstrual periods and excess hair growth.
Endometriosis: endometriosis symptoms include cramps or pelvic pain during the menstrual cycle. Birth control pills stop periods and relieve cramps and pelvic pain.
Amenorrhea: lack of menstrual periods associated with low body weight, stress, excessive exercise, radiation treatment or chemotherapy resulting in depressed levels of estrogen.
Menstrual Cramps: relief of severe cramps and heavy bleeding.
Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS): mood swings, breast soreness, and bloating, along with acne can occur up to 2 weeks before a young women’s period.
Heavy Menstrual Periods: Birth control pills reduce the volume and duration of menstrual bleeding.
Acne: moderate to severe acne due to hormone imbalance.
Getanemia: anemia (low red-cell count) potential for endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and ovarian cysts.
Fact Check:
• Sexually active Catholic women older than 18 are just as likely (98%) to have used some form of contraception banned by the Vatican as women in the general population (99%). (National Survey of Family Growth, 2008)
• Catholics (69%) are as likely as people with different religious beliefs to support medical research using embryonic stem cells left over from in-vitro fertilization procedures: Protestants (74%), other Christians (66%) and the overall population (72%) have broadly similar views. (Harris Interactive, 2010)
• When Catholic voters considered healthcare reform in 2009, and were asked about access to abortion, they supported health insurance coverage for abortion in many circumstances: when a pregnancy poses a threat to the life of a woman (84%); when a pregnancy is due to rape or incest (76%); when a pregnancy poses long-term health risks for a woman (73%); when test results show a fetus has a severe, abnormal condition (66%); and whenever a women and her doctor decide it is appropriate (50%). (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2009)
• Only 14% of Catholics in the US agree with the Vatican’s position that abortion should be illegal (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2009) and a poll released by the bishops themselves in late 2008 showed just 11% of US adults support the bishops’ preferred option: a complete ban on abortion.
In October 2011, the GOP-led House of Representatives, with support and encouragement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Family Research Council, passed H. R. 358, known as the`Protect Life Act.’ Dubbed the ‘Women’s Right to Die Act’ it is essentially a well-constructed effort to purge abortion, emergency-related or otherwise, as a healthcare option.
Here, courtesy of Library of Congress website http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp112rlxPT&r_n=hr040p1.112&…; is the analysis:
ANALYSIS AND IMPACT OF H.R. 358
As noted above, ACA's abortion provisions reflect both an excruciatingly difficult and delicately balanced compromise that was reached during the 2009-2010 health reform debate. Clearly, it was no member's first choice. But, in the spirit of conciliation and in the broader interest of keeping health reform basically intact and on track, we have been willing to stand by the law as enacted.
H.R. 358 would undo this compromise. The overall impact of the legislation--to erode the right of choice that is protected by the Constitution--is far more expansive than the disruption of health reform. In our view, H.R. 358 is part of a larger, broad-ranging effort to restrict women's access to reproductive health services. 19
[Footnote] While we are prepared at this time to continue to support health reform's abortion provisions, we are not prepared to further restrict women's access to this legal medical service. Nor are we prepared, in the guise of a debate over federal funding of abortion, to allow for limitations on the availability of other health services--especially contraception and other reproductive health services. H.R. 358 is designed to achieve both of these goals. As such, we believe the legislation makes significant and overreaching changes in at least the following three ways:
[Footnote 19: See H.R. 3, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act; H.R. 217, Title X [Family Planning] Abortion Provider Prohibition Act; Amendment No. 11 to H.R. 1, Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Congressional Record, H776 (Feb. 14, 2011)) (regarding Planned Parenthood); and Amendment No. 182 to H.R. 1, Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Congressional Record, H786 (Feb. 14, 2011)) (regarding the papillomavirus vaccine) for additional examples of legislative efforts to curtail women's access to reproductive health services.]
H.R. 358 Would effectively shut down the private insurance market for abortion coverage
H.R. 358 prohibits the use of any funds authorized or appropriated under ACA to pay for abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan in an exchange that includes abortion coverage--unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest or is necessary to save the life of the woman. Such funds are defined to include both tax credits applied toward ACA qualified health plans and ACA cost-sharing reductions. This is a wholly new approach to the treatment of private health insurance under federal law.
In effect, these restrictions would preclude any plan offering abortion coverage from accepting any customer who receives any level of ACA subsidization. This would represent the vast majority of the population purchasing private insurance through exchanges. 20
[Footnote]
[Footnote 20: CBO estimates that approximately 63% of all individuals participating in state exchanges will receive some level of subsidized support. (Letter from Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, CBO to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Mar. 20, 2010)) (on line at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/AmendReconProp.pdf).]
The legislation does permit insurance companies participating in an exchange to offer a qualified health plan for unsubsidized individuals that includes abortion coverage, but only under very restrictive conditions. Significant administrative requirements must be met and a company offering a comprehensive plan must also provide an identical plan that excludes abortion coverage. Neither the Health Subcommittee hearings nor the legislation has given any attention to the complex problems of adverse selection and actuarial soundness that such parallel plan requirements pose.
Similarly, H.R. 358 allows individuals and state and local governments to purchase separate abortion coverage--a so-called `rider' policy--so long as this coverage is not purchased using ACA authorized or appropriated funds (including ACA tax credits and cost-sharing reductions). But as the data clearly illustrate, these policies--in the very few states where they are even offered--simply do not work. 21
[Footnote] This point is underscored by the testimony of Mr. Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, who stated at the Health Subcommittee hearings: `Now, there is nothing . . . to stop any private individual from going out and purchasing abortion coverage with their own resources on the private market if they choose to do so. I suspect from the data we have seen that very few people do that [emphasis supplied].' 22
[Footnote] Again, neither the hearings nor the legislation has given any attention to the practical insurance problems that rider plans raise.
[Footnote 21: Insurers Report on Use of Abortion Riders, Washington Post (Mar. 14, 2010).]
[Footnote 22: Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Hearing on H.R. XX, Protect Life Act, 112th Cong., p. 50 (Feb. 9, 2011) (transcript of the proceeding).]
Taken together, then, these provisions establish numerous disincentives for companies to provide abortion coverage as part of their basic plan--they are administratively burdensome, unworkable, and unreasonable. Over and above their practical problems, they put private companies at great risk for exposure both to severe penalties in the case of a violation and to organized boycotts by organizations opposed to abortion. And, by requiring that abortion coverage stand separate and alone from the comprehensive package of services companies currently and routinely offer to their customers, 23
[Footnote] H.R. 358 effectively places a stigma--a bull's eye in fact--on a health service which remains legal in this country and is regarded as medically appropriate by numerous national medical organizations. 24
[Footnote]
[Footnote 23: `The best available evidence--based on studies conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and the Kaiser Family Foundation--suggests that most Americans with employer-based insurance currently have coverage for abortion.' (Guttmacher Institute, Memo on Private Insurance Coverage of Abortion (Jan. 19, 2011)).]
[Footnote 24: See, e.g., statements of the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (ACOG Statement of Policy: Abortion Policy); the American Medical Association (Statement on Abortion Policy) (on line at https://ss13.ama-assn.org/apps/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.ama-a…); and the American Academy of Family Physicians (Statement on Reproductive Decisions) (on line at http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/policy/policies/r/reproductdecisions…).]
Despite the protestations of H.R. 358's supporters, 25
[Footnote] we believe the net effect of these provisions is, for all practical purposes, to shut down the private insurance market for abortion coverage. Indeed, as Professor Sara Rosenbaum testified at the Health Subcommittee hearing on H.R. 358, `. . . health plans could be expected to exit this optional coverage market entirely [emphasis supplied].' 26
[Footnote] Such a result would mean the end of abortion coverage for millions of women and their families who already have this insurance benefit and for millions of others who would commonly expect it to be part of a comprehensive health insurance policy. In turn, families who may experience the unanticipated event of abortion could face significant out-of-pocket expenses.
[Footnote 25: At the Health Subcommittee markup, Rep. Waxman offered an amendment to set the effective date for H.R. 358 at the time (before January 1, 2014, the effective date of health reform) that the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that the availability of abortion coverage in private health plans for individuals who will not receive ACA subsidies will not be affected. Members in opposition of the amendment argued against its adoption on that grounds that `. . . we see no plausible connection between the availability of abortion coverage in the private insurance market and this pending legislation.' (Subcommittee on Health, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Markup on H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, et al., 112th Cong., p. 87 (Feb. 11, 2011) (transcript of the proceeding)). Supporters of the bill cannot have it both ways--if the legislation does not impact the availability of abortion coverage in the private market, they should be comfortable supporting an amendment requiring the certification of such coverage. Their rejection of the Waxman amendment suggests that those in opposition are at least skeptical of their own assertions about the impact of the legislation on the availability of abortion coverage.]
[Footnote 26: Subcommittee on Health, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Hearing on H.R. XX, Protect Life Act, 112th Cong., p. 37 (Feb. 9, 2011) (transcript of the proceeding).]
H.R. 358 Would undercut the purpose of ACA's essential benefits package
H.R. 358 safeguards state `conscience-protection' laws (also known as `refusal-protection' laws) that speak to health and medical services other than abortion--a broad extension of ACA's state `non-preemption' language. Such laws often refer to specific services that are covered; others are much wider in scope, allowing for great leeway in how they may be carried out. 27
[Footnote]
[Footnote 27: See, e.g., the state conscience protection law for Illinois (745 ILCS 70/3 and 70/11.2) which provides for refusal rights in the case of family planning (and other) health services, and for Mississippi (Miss. Code Ann. Sections 41-107-3 and 41-107-09) and Pennsylvania (40 P.S. Section 991-2171) which allow health care providers, including health insurers, to refuse to provide or pay for any health service as a matter of conscience.]
This far-reaching expansion of current law has enormous implications for the ACA essential benefits package, the contents of which serve as a floor for the coverage that must be provided in any qualified plan offered by an insurance company in a state exchange. 28
[Footnote] For example, under ACA, the essential benefits package may include coverage of contraception services as a minimum standard of insurance. Under H.R. 358, however, an insurance company located in a state with a sweeping refusal-protection statute in place (or one that targets family planning services specifically) could try to drop contraceptive coverage from the essential benefits package under the protection of that state law. Additionally, a state could pass a new law to take advantage of this loophole.
[Footnote 28: ACA Section 1311(3).]
It is unclear whether or not a company would be successful in this kind of effort to chip away at the essential benefits package. What is clear, however, is that--at best--the state conscience protection provisions in H.R. 358 pose a potential conflict with ACA's requirements regarding the essential benefits package and, at worse, they provide a mechanism through which insurance companies could circumvent ACA law. In either case, we believe the result is an upending of one of most important and fundamental features of ACA--coverage of and access to a core set of health care services.
It bears repeated mention that this is clearly not a provision related to abortion. The ACA already prohibits making abortion services part of the minimum benefits package and protects state laws regarding abortion coverage. Despite the bill's misleading title, the legislation is a direct mechanism for allowing state laws to trump benefits decisions in areas other than abortion. 29
[Footnote]
[Footnote 29: House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Markup on H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, et al., 112 Cong., pp. 76-80 (Feb. 15, 2011) (transcript of the proceeding).]
H.R. 358 Would undermine EMTALA's protections for women with life threatening conditions
EMTALA establishes three basic obligations for all hospitals that participate in Medicare: (1) to screen an individual who comes to the emergency department to determine whether the individual has an emergency medical condition; (2) to stabilize any emergency medical condition in individuals in the hospital; and (3) to provide an appropriate transfer to another health care facility in some cases. EMTALA does not recognize any exceptions to these requirements. 30
[Footnote]
[Footnote 30: Social Security Act, Section 1867 (U.S.C. 1395dd).]
H.R. 358 breaks with this structure and inserts language that appears to allow a construction that would place `conscience-clause'/'refusal protection' concerns above those of the emergency stabilization and treatment requirements of EMTALA. The effect of this language is, at best, ambiguous. During the markups on the legislation, Committee staff responded to questions from members about this language and repeatedly noted that it does not amend the underlying provisions of EMTALA. 31
[Footnote] One interpretation of this response is that the basic EMTALA guarantees remain intact and the new language in H.R. 358 is cosmetic only and should result in no change in policy.
[Footnote 31: House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Markup on H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, et al., 112th Cong., pp. 53-54 (Feb. 15, 2011) (transcript of the proceeding); Subcommittee on Health, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Markup on H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, et al., 112th Cong., pp. 76-79 (Feb. 11, 2011) (transcript of the proceeding).]
Another possible interpretation is that this language actually makes `conscience-clause'/'refusal protection' objections predominate over the emergency needs of a patient. 32
[Footnote] If this is the case, H.R. 358 would allow a hospital to assert an objection to abortion and turn away (without referral or appropriate transfer) a pregnant woman whose emergency medical condition requires pregnancy termination.
[Footnote 32: Subcommittee on Health, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Markup on H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, et al., 112th Cong., p. 80 (Feb. 11, 2011) (transcript of the proceeding).]
Sponsors of H.R. 358 claim that this poses no problem since EMTALA already recognizes the needs for emergency examination and treatment of the woman's `unborn child.' This constitutes a deliberate misreading of the statute. The effect of the reference to `unborn child' in the definition of `emergency medical condition' is that a pregnant woman will be considered to have an `emergency medical condition' if her health or the health of her fetus is in serious jeopardy. The only other references to `unborn child' in the statute address the safety of a transfer for a woman in labor.
But certainly EMTALA recognizes special needs during pregnancy and appropriately so. The practice of turning a patient away from a hospital without providing appropriate care (commonly known as `patient dumping') is as repugnant when it endangers a fetus or a newborn just as it is repugnant when it endangers an adult. But there are, in fact, medical conditions that occur during pregnancy in which termination of the pregnancy is one of or, indeed, the only response that will save the life of the woman. 33
[Footnote] It is unfortunately true that the medical needs of the woman and her fetus are not always parallel or consistent.
[Footnote 33: Examples of medical conditions that pose a major threat to maternal health:]
Pre-eclampsia. According to a standard textbook on obstetrics, women with severe pre-eclampsia with a pregnancy of a gestational age of under 23 weeks should be offered the option to terminate the pregnancy. (Steven Gabbe, Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies, Fifth Edition, 2007)
Pulmonary hypertension. The American College of Cardiology and the American Health Association expert consensus guidelines `recommend that pregnancy be avoided or terminated early in women with PAH [pulmonary arterial hypertension].' (ACCF/AHA 2009 Expert Consensus Document on Pulmonary Hypertension: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents and the American Heart Association Developed in Collaboration with the American College of Chest Physicians; American Thoracic Society, Inc.; and the Pulmonary Hypertension Association (Mar. 30, 2009)) (on line at http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/ful1/53/17/1573).
Indeed, religious organizations, seeking to provide guidance to their adherents, have struggled with these issues. A recent and well-publicized case of a pregnant woman with pulmonary hypertension dramatizes the ongoing nature of the problem. 34
[Footnote] Theological debates continue about such topics as `intended' termination of pregnancy, about the `direct purpose' of a procedure or of a `proportionately serious' condition. 35
[Footnote]
[Footnote 34: Hospital Nun Rebuked for Allowing Abortion in Phoenix, USA Today (May 18, 2010) (on line at http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-05-18-nun-abortionXN.htm?loc= interstitialskip).]
[Footnote 35: See U.S. Conf. of Catholic Bishops: Committee on Doctrine, The Distinction Between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures, (June 23, 2010) (on line at http://www.usccb.org/doctrine/direct-abortion-statement2010-06-23pdf).]
But the appropriate venue for such debates is theological circles and ethics committees, not an ambulance or an emergency room. Under current law, if a hospital does not have the facilities or personnel to provide appropriate treatment to a patient, the hospital may nonetheless undertake an appropriate transfer with appropriate informed consent. What is forbidden is abandoning the patient--for any reason.
We believe that one interpretation of the bill's amendment to the rule of construction of EMTALA would allow exactly that result--abandonment of the patient. It would allow a hospital to assert a religious objection to the medically necessary termination of a pregnancy and leave her without rights of transfer or referral.
We want to be clear: No one has identified a problem that this provision of the bill is supposed to solve. Indeed, the Catholic Health Association has told the Congress that it has worked successfully within the current requirements of EMTALA for years and that they do not support this change. 36
[Footnote] Since these hospitals, which have clear objections to abortion services, are living within the terms of the law now, we would expect Catholic hospitals to continue to do so--regardless of whether H.R. 358 gives them the unrequested legal permission to abandon patients. But as Members of Congress who also have a conscience and moral principles, we cannot agree that such permission to abandon patients should be granted in the law.
[Footnote 36: Letter from Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, President and CEO, Catholic Health Association of the United States to Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (Feb. 9, 2011).]
So Jeff, babies found in
So Jeff, babies found in dumpsters are wanted? Get your head out of your butt and look at the real world, please.
Phil calm down, you just
Phil calm down, you just answered your own argument. You say that contraception should be offered to everyone even if it is not free. It already is, they are called condoms and they are widely available at a very low cost. Even people on fixed incomes can afford them. There is also abstinence which is completely free, available to everyone and 100% effective, but I won't even get into that because society has been brainwashed that abstinence is an impossibility, making people out to be animals that have no ability to exercise any semblance of self control.
You stated this "I find anyone organization, regardless if it is a fortune 500, or the Catholic church, who does not cover birth control, or family planning to be archaic." I was addressing the 'archaic' statement from the standpoint of viability for insurance companies and how it doesn't fit with a Libertarian philosophy. Insurance companies don't run nor create policy based on principle, or religion, or even community standards, they run on risk management. The problem lies in that they have abandon that philosophy and created a bloated,false market. Ron Paul has actually talked extensively on this in regards to both healthcare costs and the economy in general. Life insurance is relatively inexpensive, that is because those that pose the greatest risks pay the highest rates and those who pose the smallest risk are rewarded with lower rates. Barring genetics, a healthy lifestyle and personally responsible choices are an incentive. Homeowners insurance and auto insurance are to a degree set up the same but have drifted from that policy. Healthcare insurance looks nothing like that. A person who is fit, exercises, doesn't smoke, drink, or take part in high risk activities pays the exact same rate as the morbidly obese smoker and drinker who is turning his lungs to toast and his liver into a pickle. This is why we go back to those who have no need whatsoever for contraception are forced to offset the costs for those who CHOOSE to use it whether government mandates it or not.
And Frank, women throwing their babies in dumpsters has absolutely nothing to do with insurance companies offering birth control. That has to do with a women/girl who has made a bad and then a worse choice. The analogy is reprehensible.
Tony, that is funny my
Tony, that is funny my numbers are wrong. Since, I retrieve that off that Google search you sent me yesterday. So, if my numbers are wrong then your information must be wrong. Yet you fail to show my factually incorrectness.
What this comes down to is
What this comes down to is the government can careless about expenses. Their main concern in my eyes is population control. Everyone above has argued that cost will be less than other factors (birth of babies, war, etc...)so, if costs are so low in comparison to other alternatives then why make it free? It should be affordable by most families and if not you have government services that give assistance. Plan Parenthood can give condoms out for free so why not leave it to PP to give out free birth control pills. Why, should my health care premium rates go up if, I will never use that service. To say the HMOs won't raise rates is BS. Besides I highly doubt that every women that uses birth control is doing it for a health reason over using them to control when and when not to get pregnant. Judging by all the welfare babies, I am guessing that those women do not use birth control or want it.
Things that Woodworth has
Things that Woodworth has been wrong about since the last time I posted in this thread:
I don't support the 2010 health care law. If you don't believe me, please read my quick explanation of the 'Whole-assed' approach to legislation.
http://thebatavian.com/blogs/howard-owens/todays-poll-do-you-want-congr…
The 2010 health care law is not based on what you call the 'European Model.' It is based on what is actually the "Bob Dole' model which later became the 'Mitt Romney' model. Just so you know, I also lived in Europe for several years. You should have paid more attention.
This thing you call 'Obamacare' does not cover illegal immigrants. In fact, on page 143 of the bill that was too long for the people who insist on nonsense like this to read, it states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."
Tony already handled your horrible skewing of the birth control users numbers, so I won't bother with that.
I don't think you don't care about womens' health, I just think you don't know a whole lot about it.
That should just about cover it since it encompasses nearly every word he typed in the last seventeen hours or so.
This debunking of the silly nonsense that spews forth from the keyboards of uninformed right wingers was brought to you by Pfizer, Chinese iPhone slave labor factories, and the wicked Molson hangover that kept me from getting around to it last night.
Mr. Woodworth, I know of no
Mr. Woodworth,
I know of no federal employee that now has to pay $600.00 copay for any prescription, up from $25.00, which you stated is what you have to pay now. Why just you?
John, maybe he's not shelling
John, maybe he's not shelling out that huge $54.95/month premium for Tricare Reserve Select
John, you really need to stop
John, you really need to stop listening to so much conservative radio. You sound like an echo, only the echo isn't returning verbatim. Do you actually ever re-read what you write and think it sounds okay?
Why must insurance company's
Why must insurance company's offer this with no co-pay...When every other drug you have a co pay....Chances are most poor have some kind of government health care and don't pay any premiums now...So why is Obama forcing insurance company's to provide this for free with no co pay..I haven't heard a good reason yet.....Most elderly who are on a fixed incomes pay alot in co pays for their medicines.....What the difference........
This is an interesting
This is an interesting thread, thank you, Jeff Allen, Doug McClurg, John Roach, Charlie Mallow, Ed Gentner, John Woodworth Jr., C.M. Barons, Joseph Bradt, Mark Potwora, Doug Yeomans, Chris Charvella, Tony Ferrando, Frank Bartholomew, Sean McKellar and Phil Ricci....and Beth!
Bea - I'm going to see if my
Bea - I'm going to see if my doctor will remove my ovaries because God knows I don't need any more children!
John - Now you're just being
John - Now you're just being willfully ignorant. Do yourself a favor and check dates on things, and read them carefully, before plagiarizing them. There's over 12 million women in the United States alone that take oral contraceptives. There's over 100 million in the world that take them. Not every country in this world has them available. And not every woman in this world, or country, falls between the ages of 15 and 49 to even be considered in the data. Again, you also fail to account for other forms of contraception that perform the same duties.
As of the end of 2011, 58% of all birth controls are prescribed for reasons other than contraception. That's a huge number. Ages 15-24, that number shoots up to 84% that take them for medical reasons. So your assumption that this is for people that are irresponsible is laughable... and yes, birth control regulates womens periods... that's precisely what it does and how it works. There's no questions about it, and it's done exactly that since it was approved for sale in 1963. The most basic form of oral contraceptive provides 21 pills of hormonal supplements, and 7 placebo pills. That's not regulated?
There's many, many forms of contraceptives for women, and women with medical problems are often given different types of them until the desired result is achieved. My wife being one of them. Ovarian cysts bursting are incredibly painful, and toxic to your organs - leading to a multitude of other problems. This is an incredibly beneficial drug for preventative care. You know how much the co-pay is for these drugs? 2 bucks on mine... 5 on my old. We aren't exactly talking a back-breaking amount - these are drugs that have been around so long the patents have expired and generic brands are readily available.
The morning after pill was decided months ago, and is not covered. And besides, it would not have any effect on an egg that was already fertilized. But no, it does not grant the same medical benefits.
Undocumented aliens are not covered in the health care law. A nearly 3 millennium old code (2500 years, to be more specific), called the Hippocratic Oath, covers them. Doctors will not refuse to treat patients because they lack the ability to pay. It's further cemented in this country through already established laws. And frankly, it'd be cheaper to cover them with insurance... because emergency room treatments are always more costly.
And population control...? The numbers are incredibly high for people that willfully already use one type of contraceptive or another. All studies point to either 98 or 99% of all Americans using one form of birth control or another in their lives. We do that ourselves by being responsible. Even the most devout Christians that do not believe in artificial means use natural family planning, and these methods are approved by the Roman Catholic Church.
Beth, I think John should set
Beth, I think John should set the example and be the first to opt for Bi-Lateral Orchiectomy.
The issue is not
The issue is not contraceptives or women's rights. The issue is should the federal government be allowed to mandate RELIGIOUS based institutions what they must offer, or be forced to offer nothing. We hear lots about the separation of Church and State, so where is the that line ?
John, here ya go! Dr Ballsnip
John, here ya go! Dr Ballsnip to the rescue!
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCwANvurDQI]
John, then why do all these
John, then why do all these "constitutional" type issues Conservatives spout always seem to limit the rights of Women or homosexuals? Why do Conservatives feel the need to alter the world based on their sexual morals.
This has really nothing to do with the constitution or freedom of religion, it's really about old men feeling the need to cast judgement on something that is none of thier business.
Wow..I guess that video
Wow..I guess that video wanted to be seen! LOL!
Charlie, Down boy, down. The
Charlie,
Down boy, down.
The new rule that Obama proposed, and has now backed off on, was limited to RELIGIOUS based institutions, saying they had to do something they felt was against their beliefs Or thye had to drop all health care coverage. It had nothing to do with gay rights or anything else. And that is the issue.
"The issue is should the
"The issue is should the federal government be allowed to mandate RELIGIOUS based institutions what they must offer, or be forced to offer nothing. We hear lots about the separation of Church and State, so where is the that line ?"
The line? It's where the hospital or charity chooses to accept government funds, or chooses to buy insurance off the new insurance exchange and eliminates that "line" themselves by so doing. As soon as they give an affirmative to either, they need to play by the rules. That's all this is (or was). In New York, this is already a requirement. It has not ever been an issue. This is only an issue now because it's an election year. These church-affiliated employers can choose not to buy insurance off the exchange, or self-insure and not adhere to the rules set forth. They certainly aren't short on money to do so without the help of the government that is creating this exchange and setting the rules for what insurers on the exchange are to offer.
Doug, I deleted two of your
Doug, I deleted two of your three posts of the video, since the posts were duplicates.
Tony, Now you have a good
Tony,
Now you have a good point. If a religious hospital takes government funds to operate or modernize, you take their rules also.
What we are seeing here is
What we are seeing here is the pendulum swinging the other way on issues of "separation of church and state". A guy on Twitter put it this way "Same people who cry about need to remove every element of faith from govt are overjoyed that the same govt is intervening in church affairs." If we are going to subscribe to the "get government money, play by the rules" philosophy when it comes to religious institutions, then what happened today just opened the door to all kinds of Government dictates over faith. What if the government decided that circumcision was no longer a valid medical procedure but an archaic religious ritual and threatened hospitals (Jewish and otherwise) with non payment from insurers or withdrawal of federal funding?
Ahh yes, Jeff.... but
Ahh yes, Jeff.... but government already has decided it's no longer a valid medical procedure...... for girls. It's illegal until they are 18. It is a religious activity for Muslims - rightly or wrongly. And that's a growing issue - to stop it for boys as well.
I believe this whole debate
I believe this whole debate was resolved for our county when the former Genesee Memorial Hospital and St. Jerome Hospital merged resulting in United Memorial Medical Center. For those who lack insight into that merger, the tentative (and pre-empted) version was consolidation under the name Genesee Mercy Healthcare, aligning with the Catholic Health System under the auspices of Buffalo's Mercy Hospital. There was immediate debate as to the retrograde impact on women's health services and great relief when a secular solution resulted.
There is a ring of dis-ingenuousness when the conservative voice advances arguments of inappropriate government meddling in private affairs when clearly the aim is to protect equal access to legal, personal health choices. The right-to-life advocates (for lack of a better generic label)- by all measures a minority voice- have been devoting millions of dollars toward legal ploys designed to whittle away at a multitude of women's health options under the pretext of protecting the assumed rights of the unborn. I say 'assumed' because there is no LEGAL pretext beyond assumption. 1973's Roe v Wade decision ruled women have the right to terminate a pregnancy. Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion explained that arguments for fetal personhood failed to present Constitutional or judicial precedent to establish such right.
So the right-to-life advocates have frittered at abortion rights by leveraging every opportunity to insinuate fetal personhood into legislation. The net-result, birth control ITSELF has been put to question.
The hue and cry of politics impelled by right-to-life advocacy is underscored in Rick Santorum's recent declaration that federal tax code is causing the "birth rate to go down and down and down." Santorum's faulty logic and clueless analysis of parenting trends barely overwhelms the vague case he propels. Essentially, he isn't advocating increased birth rates for Latino-, African-, Asian- or Semitic-Americans. Despite his claims to the contrary, he cited "demographic winter," not those who rebutted with charges of social engineering. Adults who choose to have no children or fewer (than parents two-generations-removed) do so for many reasons, chiefly to pursue careers. Prescribing a higher tax deduction for children is not only dismissive of adult choice in the matter; it reeks of a racist cynicism that might better have remained in the candidate's befuddled imagination rather than articulated. Higher education and affluence suppress birth rates; it's a fact. All one need do is reference countries categorized as over-populated and review literacy rate and mean income.
Neither will I deny or argue against those who cite a moral principle when citing objection to birth control- in whatever form.
I defend an individual's right to hold anti-birth control opinions; I also defend individuals with supportive opinions.
When politicians claim one opinion-holder has a right to deprive another opinion-holder of personal choice, a line has been crossed. Throughout the 1980s, while anti-abortion activists were vandalizing clinics and harassing patients, staff and doctors at those clinics, the activists' political counterparts were gutting public funding for abortions. Their rationale: taxpayers who object to abortion should be spared funding the procedure.
According to a recent Gallup poll a mere 20% of Americans think abortion should be illegal. 77% believe abortion should be legal in all, some, or a few circumstances. A February 7th poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute concluded 55% of Americans agree, "employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost.” 58% of all Catholics agree with that statement. Americans against military intervention in Afghanistan ranged from 41% in 2007 to 64% in March 2011. Polling in 2006 revealed 60% of Americans stood against the Gulf War, in contrast to 72% who supported the war in 2003.
Where was the outrage over Americans forced to pay for two wars they did not support?
Interjecting morality police between patient care and the mechanism to pay for it depends as much on guile as it does on a vacuous sense of propriety. It is difficult enough to go under anesthesia next to a tray of cutting implements, no less knowing that politicians are holding a gun to the doctor's back.
!n 2009 alarms rang across New York over closings and mergers implicating adverse impact on women's health. Bellevue Hospital was scheduled to close; proposed mergers of Ellis Hospital and St. Claire's Hospital in Schenectady County, Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center and Mount St. Mary's Medical Center in Lewiston, and Arnot Ogden Hospital and St. Joseph's Hospital in the Syracuse region. Imagine a pregnant woman arriving at a hospital, being diagnosed with preeclampsia and told to go to another hospital because policy restricted the doctor from performing certain procedures.
40 years ago, if church-affiliated hospitals refused to perform certain women's health procedures on moral grounds, the significance would be minimal. Today there are 5754 registered hospitals in the U. S., a drop from 6649 in 1990. In 1970 there were approximately 7500 U. S. hospitals. During the 1980s hospital closings averaged 80 per year. Today religious health care systems are the largest private, non-profit providers of health care in the United States, growing faster than the for-profit facilities. From 1990 to 1997 eighty-four mergers occurred between Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals nationwide. By 1996, five of the ten largest
health care systems were Catholic with net patient revenues for FY 1996/1997 exceeding 7.7% compared to 5.5% for-profit systems. Moreover, in 1998, Catholic hospitals were sole providers in almost 1500 service areas.
If Catholic hospitals are the only option in 1500 service areas, how do women access health care unobtainable at a Catholic hospital? If right-to-life politicians pass laws prohibiting accreditation or reimbursements for healthcare facilities that offer women's health services, where do women go to receive such services? If right-to-life politicians pass laws that prohibit or render unprofitable the offering of insurance coverage for women's health services, where do women go to receive health services?
If it's meddling for government to enforce equal access to health services or insurance coverage for health services... What is it when government limits the health services citizens can access?
Well John I do not know what
Well John I do not know what federal employees you know so, I can only guess you know senior retired federal employees who may be protected. I can tell you I have local HMO which makes me pay $600 dollars before it will help out with my co-pays. Chris Tricare is for military personnel and I civilian.. As far as Tony's numbers being right Chris, you may want to know that came from the site Tony sent me.
Mr. Woodworth, You said you
Mr. Woodworth,
You said you had to pay $600 co pays. It seems what you meant was that you have a $600 deductible. That is a major difference.
Mr. Woodworth wrote, ".....
Mr. Woodworth wrote, "..... Tricare is for military personnel and I civilian."
Please correct my understanding. Didn't I read somewhere that " ......So, my advise is stop being so blind and naive to the real threat. Beside I worry about more than you will. Afterall I am the one that carries the rifle and defends your arse."
Bea, If you had read earlier
Bea,
If you had read earlier in other posts, he is a DOD cop, working at the airbase.
So he is a civilian, not
So he is a civilian, not military, and " ........So, my advise is stop being so blind and naive to the real threat. Beside I worry about more than you will. Afterall I am the one that carries the rifle and defends your arse."
I'm sorry he has such lousy coverage for such an important job.
Charlie, Religious freedom is
Charlie,
Religious freedom is at the very foundation of what this nation stands for. Your argument about how many Catholic women use birth control is moot, in that, how many Baptist do you know that drink, plenty. How many United Methodist go to the downs? More than most people realize.
Our constitution IS NOT based on what rights we have, it is based on what rights the Government DOES NOT HAVE, a fundemental that most seem to forget.
If the Catholic Church funds a church, school, charity, IT IS A CATHOLIC organization, therefore protected from the government.
In the past few years, we are letting the protections of the US Constitution slip away, for the sake of percieved rights.
Mark, freedom has nothing to
Mark, freedom has nothing to do with giving a bunch of appointed old men the right to control the reproductive rights of a woman who works for them. That's a sickening abuse of religious "freedom" and no employer should take such liberties. Your religion is your own business and employers can't descriminate based on religion. Therefore an employer has no right to impose thier religious doctrine on an employee. An employee has free will to practice what ever religion they choose.
There are religions that do not believe in any medical care at all. Should companies have the right to eliminate all health care benefits because they decide to adopt those beliefs? Should the rest of us then be forced to pay for medical coverage for their employees as well? The problem is anyone can go to the hospital and not pay because those costs will be rolled into higher costs for the rest of us. That's why our premiums rise every year. The millions of uninsured or under insured are bleeding us dry. The system as it is doesn't work. Our society will never turn down medical coverage to anyone so, it's time to live with that reality. It's about economics, not some stupid notion of freedom.
Charlie, "Some stupid notion
Charlie,
"Some stupid notion of freedom", speaks volumes.
Depends what the word freedom
Depends what the word freedom means to you? Freedom to me means my employer doesn't dictate my religions beliefs or my personal medical decisions. Now the compromise means we are left with the costs being spread around to the rest of us.
But you are OK with the
But you are OK with the government dictating to your religion? By your reasoning, the government should dictate that the Catholic Church must have women priests since not doing so is discrimination (I think they should, but do not want Obama telling them they have to).
The fact is that not all the
The fact is that not all the churches employees are Catholic and even those that are have the right to determine their own health care decisions. That’s freedom. People who chose to follow every rule of the church are also not having contraception forced on them. So exactly where is the loss of Religious freedom? I was taught (in Catholic school by the way) people have free will to do right or wrong. It’s the choices you make that matter. The church providing standard coverage has nothing to do with their teachings.
The fact is that the
The fact is that the employees pick to work for catholic institutions. They know what benefits are offered and know that based on church religious doctrine, birth control is not offered. Nobody forced them to work for the church.
John, the new reality is that
John, the new reality is that everyone is being given a standard coverage. If certain companies are given an out, the rest of us will pay higher premiums to cover their employees. By your standard any employer can remove any treatment and then by default, force those costs down on the rest of us. Adding religion and birth control to the debate was a convenient political move, nothing more. It doesn’t change the reality.
Nancy Pelosi Rips GOP Over
Nancy Pelosi Rips GOP Over Birth Control: I May Be 'Moved To Explain Biology To My Colleagues'
"Five men are testifying on women's health," Pelosi said. "Where are the women? Imagine having a panel on women's health and they don't have any women on the panel."
She paused, and then added, "Duh!"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/16/nancy-pelosi-gop-birth-control…
Just like here!
I'd just like to jump back
I'd just like to jump back into this thread for a moment to reiterate my point about the tragic irony of Catholic Church leadership feigning outrage over birth control while they shield child raping priests from prosecution.
Any moral argument from this institution lacks credibility and will continue to lack credibility until the day they de-frock their criminal priests and hand them over to the proper authorities for trial.
Charlie, Mandatory free birth
Charlie,
Mandatory free birth control, like free Viagra, for working people, is just not right.
While I don't think it is the business of government to tell churches or companies like yours what they have to, or don't have to, cover, I wouldn't mind it as much if it was a required option for non religious businesses that the employee could decide to buy or not buy birth control coverage. But mandatory "free" is too much. What's next,mandatory "free" foot care?
Of course nothing is "free" and you know it. The insurance companies just pass on their cost to all of us in the form of higher premiums, like they will in this case. We are going to buy the "free" birth control for them.
Makes you ask where does the government draw the line on telling us what to do. We just had a government agent tell a little school girl her mother's home made lunch did not meet lunchroom standards and then bill the family for approved government food. But then, it's just a "stupid notion of freedom", right?
You know what would finish
You know what would finish this silly/strawman/culture war/bullshit/wag the dog argument immediately? Single payer health insurance. Birth control against your religion? Don't use it. Problem effing solved.
While it makes people, like
While it makes people, like John, feel good to say that insurance premiums would rise, the real truth is that giving away birth control pills would save the insurance companies money in the end.
Covering a pregnancy is expensive.
Covering an abortion is expensive.
Covering related medical issues associated with either is expensive.
Giving away a product that would save the companies the expense of either is a win/win for them.
Bea, The companies are
Bea,
The companies are already raising rates to pay for "free" mandatory coverage. And while they might save money in the long run, anyone paying insurance premiums will pay for the free stuff. They save and we pay.
Who does Bea think will be paying for this "free stuff"? Do you really think the are "giving away" a product? Really?
They will write it off. Most
They will write it off. Most likely from their promotion budget. Are you saying you never receive samples from the doctor? Did you accept that free stuff or did you insist on paying for it?
If your rates are going up, it isn't because of a small percentage of 'give away' items and certainly not from birth control, especially generic.
Yea, right. They are forced
Yea, right. They are forced to provide something for "free" and will not pass the cost on. Out of the goodness of their hearts, they are going to write it off, take the loss and not make us pay for it.
John, I'm pretty sure
John, I'm pretty sure insurance companies prefer birth control usage. Remember these companies are looking to make a profit. Only out of touch Republicans think this is a winning issue.
I'm calling the election now for Obama, mark the date and time, its going to be a landslide.