weeklystandard.com — On the last weekend of January, priests in Catholic churches across America read extraordinary letters to their congregations. The missives informed the laity that President Obama and his administration had launched an assault on the church. In Virginia, Catholics heard from Bishop Paul Loverde, who wrote, “I am absolutely convinced that an unprecedented and very dangerous line has been crossed.” In Phoenix, Bishop Thomas Olmsted wrote, “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.” In Pittsburgh, Bishop David Zubik wrote that President Obama had told Catholics,
Feb 4, 2012 View in Crawl 4
timedalkatFeb 4, 2012
The commentary here by Mr Last, is seriously silly, beginning with "most Catholic bishops are not terribly conservative....", and ending with "The other possibility, of course, is that Obama sees the dismantling of Catholic institutions as part of a larger ideological mission, worth losing votes over. As Yuval Levin noted in National Review Online last week, institutions such as the Catholic church represent a mediating layer between the individual and the state. This layer, known as civil society, is one of the principal differences between Western liberal order and the socialist view."
Obama's not a socialist and anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows this, so either Last's intentions are dubious, or he is a complete idiot. I'm guessing he's not that dumb.
Beyond ridiculous.
MrFrogyFeb 4, 2012
This is like chocolate to people who hate the Catholic church, and religion in general. There will be a lot of people on the extreme Left who will be dancing in the streets shouting "neener neener" over this one - until it's modified, which it obviously will be.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
graehFeb 5, 2012
well, I suppose you can be thankful that simply because they disagree with you, they won't wish you enternal torture.
MrFrogyFeb 5, 2012
Oh, extremes hate very well. The extreme Left hates just as well as the Extreme Right. They just do it differently, but it's the same ugly hate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
graehFeb 5, 2012
So in response to my broadly accurate point that at least one of the two groups won't wish you eternal torture - you offer up "different, but the same hate".
You realise other people saw you write that, right? I mean come on, at least make an appearance that you put some degree of effort and ethical consideration in to your belief system and that it's not based on convenience of birth or geography.
I mean - this is live - it's not your in group's unwavering support of your in groups dogma. You actually have to construct a logical argument for people to consider your view.
This is seriously primary school stuff here - how can you not see it?
MrFrogyFeb 5, 2012
Actually, my original comment was less about religion and more about politics, which is what this issue has become. My second comment reflected the same attitude. And before you attack me with your condescending 'primary school' crap, maybe you should learn to spell, and fix your grammar - things they teach in 'primary school'.
I am not Catholic, and "I don't have a horse in this race", but I think this was written in the law, and hidden on purpose. There would have been obvious outrage by a large percentage of the population, so they buried it and didn't define it until it came time to enforce it. If the same tactic were used to force schools into a "moment of silence in the first class of the day" or some other agenda that goes against the Left's core beliefs then there would be equal outrage.
Lastly, my religious beliefs dictate that there is no such thing as a fiery pit of hell for people who I don't agree with. In fact, my beliefs specifically say that there is truth in all religions, and good people will go to a good place regardless of their beliefs, OR LACK THEREOF. Even atheists. Why do we believe this? Because it turns out that not all Christians hate everyone, and not all religions preach that you have to either join them or endure eternal torture. This is not just a personal belief, it's taught from the pulpit.
And before you ask which church, don't bother - a bit too personal for me to discuss in this hostile environment. That, and I am not proselytizing on Digg - I am just making a point.
And to your original "don't wish eternal torture on you" thing - horses**t. I personally know people on the extreme Left, and have been told by many more, that they hope Christians burn in their own hell. So you were literally wrong on everything you said.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
craig1958Feb 5, 2012
Having a fictional overlord is no fun if you can't wish eternal torture on those who don't share in your delusion.
jaketyson85Feb 5, 2012
dont let these dumbocratic jacklegs get you down with BS thumbdown diggs. every irresponsible atheist is just gonna use this as more fodder to spit in the face of christ.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tehravenFeb 5, 2012
Lol, I think your lord and savior would appreciate his name capitalized. And i'm pretty sure there are Christian democrats, like my mother (Catholic) and no matter what I think of her religious views she's not easily swayed by bulls**t like this.
kingnovaFeb 5, 2012
Gotta laugh at someone like jaketyson85. "Let me tell you just how Christian I am while I call those that disagree with me names!"
You sure make Jesus proud, lol.
eraptorFeb 5, 2012
If the Catholic Church wishes to provide healthcare services in the U.S., then it is OBLIGATED to abide by the SAME secular standards of healthcare as EVERY other healthcare provider. It does NOT have a right to dictate secular healthcare standards using religious freedom as the wedge/weapon.
The Catholic Church faces a choice. If it does not wish to comply with secular U.S. healthcare standards on religious grounds. It can simply sell it's healthcare institutions to a secular institution and get out of the business completely. Otherwise, it should abide by secular healthcare standards and find an alternative means of fulfilling it's spiritual mission on earth.
THIS is a prime example of why many Americans view Institutional Catholicism with so much skepticism. The Vatican's political ambitions and meddlesome overreach ALWAYS undermine it's spiritual mission.
UncleRuckuFeb 5, 2012
If Church wants to engage in politics they should lose the tax exemption they now enjoy.
elimgarakFeb 5, 2012
Agreed. At the same time I see their point - they provide a healthcare service, and by new law the service has extra requirements that go against their religious beliefs.
IMHO this is rather inevitable. The Catholic church needs to either adopt or stop directly providing healthcare service. They have been passed by both history and public opinion on this matter. If Catholic faith didn't believe in antibiotics, I would say they would need to be forced in the same way - either start supporting antibiotics, or stop providing a service altogether, leaving healthcare to somebody else.
dauntless1Feb 5, 2012
Exactly. Don't like the laws? No-one is forcing you to provide healthcare.
sbuckley00Feb 5, 2012
Or live in a country with laws you do not like.
geejayeFeb 5, 2012
I agree. If our tax dollars are going to these Catholic institutions, then we cannot set the precedent of allowing these institutions to shun health care that is legal in the US. For, if we do - are we ready to apply the same principles to a Muslim hospital, for example.
For, what we set as a precedent with one religion must follow with the next. We cannot discriminate based on the name of the religion.
jpurdyFeb 5, 2012
Absolutely, as should the pseudo Christian social conservative extremists that campaign for idiots like Gingrich, Perry and Santorum.
craig1958Feb 4, 2012
Why is this political organization still tax exempt?
cairneFeb 4, 2012
in this case the state shot first.
craig1958Feb 4, 2012
I don't think "the state" needs to pander to superstition. These organizations are not exempt from the law.
cairneFeb 4, 2012
Great. Take away their tax exempt status, removing the separation of church and state. Then things will really get fun
ericschc1Feb 4, 2012
Please. Don't act like that "separation" ever really existed or has ever been clearly enacted.
cairneFeb 4, 2012
Well, that explains why we still have prayer in schools
MusicManGPFeb 5, 2012
Taking away their tax exempt status would not remove the separation of church and state. With true separation of church and state, religious organizations would receive no preferential treatment simply for being a religious organization.
asfinktersezwutFeb 5, 2012
Your logic is missing some key facts: They receive preferential treatment as they are non-profits and charitable organizations.
MusicManGPFeb 5, 2012
My logic doesn't miss that at all. My point is precisely that those are the kinds of reasons they should receive tax-exempt status, and not because they're religious organizations.
craig1958Feb 5, 2012
It wold be interesting to see if they meet the criteria for non-profits and charitable organizations. They seem to do a pretty good job of accumulating wealth for themselves.
Unfortunately, religious organizations do enjoy a tax exempt status. Apparently that was based on the premise that they contributed something to society. Now that they have become political organizations, it may be time to revisit that assumption.
sbuckley00Feb 5, 2012
Commenting on your second comment.. what you are missing is the fact that religious organizations are not really fully non-profit. I ASSURE you that they have lots of money put away. Obviously, that money had not been spent yet, so as of right now it is profit.
sbuckley00Feb 5, 2012
How does that even remove separation of church and state?
MrFrogyFeb 4, 2012
You posted your question on the wrong article. There are a bunch of other ones talking about Planned Parenthood. You should be more careful about that!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
UncleRuckuFeb 5, 2012
the federal endorsement of a deity or religion violates the united states constitution
TGRHvWGAFFeb 5, 2012
First I'll get this out of the way - passing legislation with vague wording then "interpreting" it unreasonably is just plain silly. Granted, the organization doing the interpreting is separate from the DOH. Nevertheless, the interpretation is significantly different from what most of us would have had as a reasonable expectation at the time the law was passed.
Having said that - the Catholic church's disagreement ultimately sits with the Institute of Medicine rather than the Obama administration. The church has no objection to providing other preventive services - mammograms and cholesterol screenings are fine. They simply don't consider birth control to be "preventive". Except of course, there are cases where a woman who gets severe menstrual cramps. Not exactly preventive, but then again I'm not a doctor. The people who are doctors seem to think it qualifies as preventive though.
More importantly, what's happening here is the administration is taking away the ability of religious organizations *that are not churches* to control the people who work for them who don't follow their religion. That's not necessarily a bad thing. If I'm a janitor working for the local Catholic diocese, what business does my employer have telling me whether or not my wife can be on birth control? They can't make me go to church, why should I let them tell me what medicine my family and I are allowed to take?
The Catholic church lost this fight a long time ago. They just haven't figured it out yet.
fizixmanFeb 5, 2012
I know someone who takes prescribed birth control pills to help even out her particularly painful and otherwise irregular periods.
Thanks for posting all of that; I came in here to comment more or less the same thing but you did the job better than I could have.
craig1958Feb 5, 2012
My teenage daughter also takes prescribed birth control pills. If my insurance was through an employer, I would not want that employer making medical decisions for my family; even if that employer's business happened to be based on mythology from 2000 years ago.
pinkfish411Feb 5, 2012
There's a difference between telling you that you can't take birth control, and simply not paying for your coverage for it. You're trying to cast this in terms of negative rights, but it's an issue of positive rights. The question is, "Is access to birth control a fundamental human right that our employers should be required to actively provide us with? And does our positive right to birth control trump the negative right of a hiring institution not to have to pay for things they don't morally approve of?" What the present decision says is that an employee's positive right to contraception requires it to be paid for by their employer, and that right trumps any competing negative rights the employers might claim. What it's saying is that positive rights trump negative rights, effectively.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
craig1958Feb 5, 2012
Yes, that is what the decision says. To put it another way, an employer has to follow the law even if they don't agree with it. Employers don't get to morally object to these requirements any more than an individual can refuse to pay taxes because he has a moral objection to funding the military. What if the employer was a church of scientology that objected to any medical procedure on moral grounds; could they refuse to insure any procedure that they found immoral? in this case, the court has to look on this institution as an employer and apply the appropriate law; otherwise this will become a very slippery slope. We will have all kinds of employers refusing to comply with whatever requirements they happen to find objectionable.
pinkfish411Feb 5, 2012
So, since when is the law something that we can't question and push back against in hoping of having it refined? The fact of the matter may simply be that this law is a bad one from the get-go, and there's no reason to require all employers to provide coverage for contraception precisely because it pits the employer's negative rights and the claimed positive rights of the employees against each other in unfruitful, unproductive way.
As for scientologists objecting to provide insurance for medical procedures: go ahead. Nobody is being forced to work for scientologist institutions. I would much rather preserve a negative right to not be forced to do something against my conscience than to try to enforce some supposed positive right to contraception. And I'm saying this as one who doesn't even agree with the Catholic Church's stance on birth control. I simply value freedom of conscience and freedom to form a collective identity (even when I don't like the results) over the positive freedom to have somebody else provide you with birth control. It's not contest between the two, in my eyes.
craig1958Feb 5, 2012
This just seems like a very slippery slope. What comes next; do individual business owners get to adjust their employee's benefits based on their personal beliefs (honestly, or just to same money)? Do churches get to tell the business owners in their "flock" what benefits are acceptable to offer? Can large business that have a religious aspect (such as christian radio stations or "chick-a- fill restaurants) refuse to provide certain benefits to their secular employees who are just trying to make a living by working there?
If we are going to go down that path, I would prefer to have government provided health insurance for everyone and keep everyones' particular "god" out of the equation altogether.
The bottom line is that the "moral" decision is up to the individual, it should not be up to whomever his/her employer happens to be at the moment. Most people just want a job, they do not want to be affected by the "morality" of the individual or institution that owns the business.
pinkfish411Feb 5, 2012
Disconnecting healthcare from employment does seem like the best solution, I agree. While I don't share your concerns about the "slippery slope" (I have no problems with employers placing some restrictions on what health packages they buy their employees based on conscience, since freedom of conscience is a Constitutional right and one of the foundational rights of modern liberal democracy, whereas subsidized access to birth control isn't), it would be easier for everyone if employers weren't mandated to provide all these services for employees and a third party were left to do it.
I also agree that moral decisions are up to individuals, but employers are also individuals, or collections of individuals. What your logic is effectively saying is that people with certain kinds of moral inhibitions have no right to become players in the market or in civil society without abandoning their conscience. You can disagree with what their conscience tells them, but the whole idea of freedom of conscience is that they should not be coerced into doing that which violates their perceived duties to God, to their fellow human beings, and to the moral order. While we can make exceptions to freedom of conscience is the case of egregious violations of human rights (like blocking someone's access to health care), I don't think we should be making such exceptions for such a peripheral, even trivial "right" as access to subsidized contraception.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 5, 2012
So just to be clear: in your perfect world, every employer can enforce their own morality on their employees in the form of what health care procedures they can get?
I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious here, but most of us can't just change jobs at a whim. With lower-paying jobs it's not too difficult to line up another gig, but then again the people working those low-paying jobs typically don't have much of a cushion to get them by while changing jobs. And senior-level positions? I spent months interviewing and negotiating for my job... am I supposed to do that because my employer arbitrarily decides that they don't approve of some procedure I need?
Your perfect world sucks. But by all means, encourage your candidates of choice for public office to publicly voice their support for employer-morality-determined health care. Let's see how well that goes over.
pinkfish411Feb 6, 2012
You don't seem to be clear on what I'm saying at all. An employer should have no right to tell its employees what medical procedures they can get. That would be violating the negative rights of the employees. (Negative rights are the freedom from being coerced by others, the freedom from having people keep you from buying birth control.) Saying that the employees have a negative right to birth control is not the same as saying they have a positive right to it. (A positive right is a right that must be actively fulfilled by another party, the right to have someone else provide you with birth control if you cannot procure it by your own means.)
Nobody is telling people that they can't buy their own birth control pills if they work for a Catholic institution. That's not the issue. The issue is that the Catholic institutions are being mandated to help fulfill the supposed positive right to universal access to birth control. That's where the controversy is.
As I said before, this is about a conflict between the negative freedom of conscience of the persons paying for the health care plans and the supposed positive freedom of access to contraception by the employees. I support freedom of conscience, the freedom to actually have moral opinions and take them seriously without being bullied out the market and out of civil society for something like contraception. Freedom of conscience is perhaps the most precious of all freedoms that we are guaranteed in modern democracy, and the "slippery slope" of chipping away at freedom of conscience is the complete domination of the state over matters of moral conviction, so that only those who agree with the state are allowed to participate in society. No thanks.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TGRHvWGAFFeb 5, 2012
Considering the cost of many prescription medications and medical procedures, I'd have to say that's not the case. It's a fundamental difference between conservative and liberal thinking, and it's an important one to identify so that the electorate can make an informed decision. In particular when it comes to the poorest among us, a medical procedure that isn't covered by insurance is basically unavailable. The poorest and least educated among us are the ones who are more likely to have unprotected sex, and they're the ones who are more likely to have an unwanted pregnancy. If you oppose abortion, you should be in favor of anyone below the poverty line getting all the free birth control they want.
Let's also keep in mind, health insurance is compensation. My employer can't tell me what I can do with my paycheck, nor can it tell me where I'm allowed to invest my 401k. Why should they tell me what procedures I can get with my health insurance? If I work for a religious organization they certainly wouldn't approve of me blowing my paycheck on strippers and blow, are you saying they should be able to police my spending activity?
Bottom line: churches who primarily employ the faithful get to continue imposing their outdated rules on their employees, because they after all belong to the same religion (and honestly, they should be happy with that). Those larger organizations who employ workers from outside their own faith don't get to deny medical procedures based on their morality. They want the benefits of pulling from all of the job market rather than just hiring within their flock... and that's fine. But they have to behave according to the same rules as all the other companies that hire from the general public.
pinkfish411Feb 6, 2012
Question: would the poorest be better off if Catholic employers were simply run out of market in order to protect their consciences? Or if they stopped hiring those outside their faith? You seem to want the benefits of having Catholic employers giving poor people jobs, without giving the employers any freedom make contracts with their employees on terms that don't violate their consciences.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pinkfish411Feb 5, 2012
There's a difference between telling you that you can't take birth control, and simply not paying for your coverage for it. You're trying to cast this in terms of negative rights, but it's an issue of positive rights. The question is, "Is access to birth control a fundamental human right that our employers should be required to actively provide us with? And does our positive right to birth control trump the negative right of a hiring institution not to have to pay for things they don't morally approve of?" What the present decision says is that an employee's positive right to contraception requires it to be paid for by their employer, and that right trumps any competing negative rights the employers might claim. What it's saying is that positive rights trump negative rights, effectively.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sbuckley00Feb 5, 2012
well said
pinskiaFeb 5, 2012
My wife is an example of where birth control is really preventive medicine. If preventing heavy bleeding for over three months is not preventive medicine, I don't know what is.
ageofmasteryFeb 4, 2012
The Catholic Church thinks the country should be run by it's law, not civil law.
particleman420Feb 5, 2012
Christian Sharia Law
markglFeb 6, 2012
Since you guys like to throw the separation of church and state around I guess now is as good time as any to shove it back in your face.
uncoverorFeb 5, 2012
Public health is more important than a church's silly fairy tales, and contrived morality rules.
kasha34Feb 5, 2012
That's true. And how does getting your co-workers to pay for YOUR contraceptives benefit public health?
macdaddy357Feb 5, 2012
The kiddie fiddling church has no moral authority.
icwydFeb 4, 2012
Seeing that the teachings of the Catholic church are mostly liberal in nature it would seem that they want to lose as many of their laypeople as possible.
rudegarFeb 4, 2012
would be in all Christian churches unless they really went overboard making up stuff to explain away all the turn the other cheek and give to they neighbor stuff but then it does often seems that the most Christian nation on the planet have changed what being Christian really is all about
jpurdyFeb 5, 2012
I have to wonder what good works and medical care the Catholic church could provide if they weren't paying millions in settlement of sex abuse cases. Trying to find quickly just how much money was involved, I ran across this - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2028424/Catholic-church-used-400m-Irish-bank-loans-pay-U-S-sexual-abuse-victims.html
They could apparently afford to pay taxes.
netantFeb 5, 2012
Either you believe that people can organize and worship freely, or you believe gov't should have to power to tax any organization. It should be interesting when the IRS puts Occupy Movement "leaders" in prison for failing to reveal income and donations.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
netantFeb 6, 2012
A coward is someone who can bury a comment, but can't even bother to explain why they disagree with it.
penglustFeb 6, 2012
Because your comment was moronic and off the point.
stevanoskiFeb 6, 2012
or a really busy person?
markglFeb 6, 2012
Since you guys like to throw the separation of church and state around I guess now is as good time as any to shove it back in your face.
stevanoskiFeb 6, 2012
I know, if this had been any Rep. then all you would see ad naseum would be separation of church and state.
monvalleyFeb 5, 2012
obama doesn't care if he loses catholics, he plans to win on black votes; listen to his utube racist message "blacks for obama".
yurmutha412Feb 4, 2012
This is the first step of the government being wedded to religion, what our ancestors left in fear of to start this country. Religions will join up or be ousted and discriminated against.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
grannysrightFeb 6, 2012
The Catholic Church has every right to as they please with their health care. Who the heck does Obama think he is telling a church what they can do and not do.
If I have a store and don't want to sell cheese, that's my choice, because if you want cheese then go to Salvadore's down the block, he has lots of cheese.
If you want birth control and abortions, go where it can be found, after all the Dems have made sure even our 6 years can get it if they want it.
angelofchaos99Feb 6, 2012
Even the vast majority of US Catholic women use birth control. The Church is simply behind the times. But what does everyone expect? The Pope apologized for the Spanish Inquisition in 2004. It will be a while before the Church catches up with birth control.
Until then, the Catholic Church should allow their students and employees to follow their own moral compasses and cover the BC.
turgoreFeb 5, 2012
he said ...she said.
kasha34Feb 5, 2012
I don't agree that ANYONE's insurance should cover birth control. Pay for it yourself, for god's sake. Getting me to pay for yours doesn't save society any money.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
MusicManGPFeb 5, 2012
It's times like this that make it hard not to see you as a troll.
Birth control shouldn't be covered by health insurance?
Unplanned babies don't cost society anything?
kasha34Feb 5, 2012
A lot of things "cost society."
MusicManGPFeb 5, 2012
If you're not going to defend your statements, I'll make no further attempt to find meaning or substance in them.
sbuckley00Feb 5, 2012
Stupid is as stupid does, jenny!
kasha34Feb 5, 2012
That was a defense.
elimgarakFeb 5, 2012
I don't see it being a defense either. It's just a vague statement without any underlying ideas. If you want it to be considered a defense, please expand on that. And explain how that is equivalent to unplanned babies.
asfinktersezwutFeb 5, 2012
Give it up. Kasha isn't here to engage in an adult conversation. There are many people here interested in discussion, but Kasha is not one of them. Kasha is here to make proclamations and rant like a 6 yr old about Obama and lefty-liberals. It's quite sad really.
pinkfish411Feb 5, 2012
Technically, birth control is not "insurance" by definition. Insurance exists to cover major unexpected problems that would otherwise provide a difficult financial burden. An elective pill that you take every day to prevent pregnancy isn't something that we can insure against. It's not insurance, it's a pre-pay plan for a product that the purchasers may or may not elect to use.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
MusicManGPFeb 5, 2012
I don't understand your argument. Of course birth control isn't insurance, only insurance is insurance.
Plenty of health insurance plans include coverage for preventative measures of various sorts - routine checkups for example. Such things wouldn't be considered insurance by your definition, and yet they're covered.
My sister developed an ovarian cyst at the age of 16. After going through surgery to deal with the cyst, she was put on birth control to avoid the problem in the future.
Beyond an example like that where birth control is a medical recommendation, it's completely reasonable to provide birth control to women through their health insurance plans. For many women, it's a practical requirement for managing their lives and their health.
pinkfish411Feb 5, 2012
Well, most of those preventative things aren't insurance, by definition. The point is that much of what passes for "insurance" is really just pre-paid health coverage, which is what makes "insurance" so expensive. And the more non-insurance stuff has to be covered, the higher the cost has to be. People who are content with a high-deductible, major medical, true insurance plan get screwed over the more their "insurance" programs are mandated to cover.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FrankLuskaFeb 5, 2012
"Unplanned babies don't cost society anything?"
Are you talking about, a 15 year old that gets pregnant with poor parents, county or state (taxpayers) has to foot the bill for the hospital, food stamps, child care, etc, etc, etc,
What do consider a cost to society?
netantFeb 5, 2012
While unplanned babies certainly costs the taxpaying society, I'm failing to see why drugs used for contraception purposes should be covered by health insurance.
Are you suggesting taxpayers should now pay for people's cosmetic surgery? (And why deny this medically "necessary" procedure to teenage girls?)
Hell, if its not life threatening, I don't think health insurance should even cover allergy pills.
Since "medical" marijuana use is now recognized in CA and other states, is health insurance now required to provide weed to medical card holders?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 5, 2012
And if the Catholic religion was against antibiotics? Would you say that Catholics would also need to either pay for such a vital service themselves?
kasha34Feb 5, 2012
It's not "Catholics." It's people who work for the Church or for Catholic Hospitals. If Catholic Hospitals didn't use antibiotics they wouldn't get any patients, would they?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 5, 2012
This is the question at the core of the whole healthcare thing. You and the rest of the conservatives keep saying that healthcare is a free market, and that people will just automatically choose a better healthcare provider, and the strong will survive.
What you can't seem to understand is that it is often very difficult to find a different provider. Or to even figure out beforehand that the provider you've got is not good. There is not nearly enough competition between providers, there aren't enough of them, there isn't any real way for people to figure out what the differences are, and there is definitely no way for people to predict when they will need certain services.
One of the core ideas of Obamacare is that there must be a minimum standard to all healthcare services. That includes things like antibiotics, preventative care, emergency care, etc. And birth control. That's a very basic medical care service that should be given by any healthcare provider.
You seem to reject the whole idea of minimal standards - at least for healthcare. I just can't understand why. If an organization wants to have a healthcare service that only gives out aspirin and nothing else, then it should not be classified as a healthcare service. That's the basic idea here. You are arguing that a provider must have the right to just give out aspirin, and f**k the patient. We vehemently disagree.
netantFeb 5, 2012
What makes birth control basic medical care requirement, and not plastic surgery? Why shouldn't we be compelling taxpayers to pay for breast augmentations?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 5, 2012
Because a baby has a bit more impact on one's life than bigger or smaller boobs. Not to mention on society. And if the mom is so screwed up that breast implants are more important to her than a baby, then she definitely should not have one.
Adding coverage for birth control will easily reduce poverty in the family and in the state. It makes long-term economical sense if nothing else.
netantFeb 5, 2012
@elimgarak
What you fail to realize is that issuing birth control pills (or IUD) is not addressing a medical issue, but a LIFESTYLE issue. If you're going to require all businesses and nonprofits to pay for lifestyle pills (or IUD), its the same thing as requiring them to pay for cosmetic surgery.
Just because something seems to be reasonable social policy, does not mean gov't has the "right" to cram it down your throat. In this case, you're using gov't to compel a religious group to participate in debasing their own moral tenets. Medically necessary care is a totally different issue. Contraception is not medically necessary and taxpayers should not be compelled to pay for lifestyle choices, otherwise gov't has a rationale to compel society to pay for breast augmentations, tummy tucks, and wrinkle removal.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
geejayeFeb 5, 2012
"not addressing a medical issue, but a LIFESTYLE issue".
Well then, should we treat the pregnancy (and child) that results from this "lifestyle issue"?
If your answer is "yes", then we should pay for the prevention of pregnancy - just like we pay for the prevention of stroke, heart disease, etc.
geejayeFeb 5, 2012
And, "plastic surgery" is not an equivalence.
Birth control is preventive medicine. Plastic surgery is not.
netantFeb 6, 2012
@geejaye
The issue is "not what makes us closer to utopia". The issue is what are the obligations and limitations of gov't concerning policy. Just because we think there will be a "net" benefit from an action, does not mean we are "entitled" to cram that action down peoples' throats, particularly when it violates standing moral and constitutional standards.
People do not have a RIGHT to birth control. Forcing everyone to subsidize everything we think will be good is not necessarily good.
Birth control is not necessary to maintain human life. Cosmetic surgery is not necessary to maintain human life. If the perceived benefit is the only metric you use to pass LAW, you will find our society at each other's throats based on who's rationalization holds greater sway. At very least, if you want to subsidize birth control, there are obvious benefits to subsidizing cosmetic surgery. Too bad if society goes broke trying to pay for other people's utopia.
netantFeb 6, 2012
@geejaye
Birth control is not preventative medicine, unless the person taking it will die/harmed by becoming pregnant. Birth control pills prevent pregnancy, pills are medication, but that does not make birth control pills preventative medicine, particularly if the contraindications are worse than the benefit.
angelofchaos99Feb 6, 2012
"Birth control is not preventative medicine, unless the person taking it will die/harmed by becoming pregnant."
Pregnancy is always risky, often harmful, and occasionally deadly. So BC is preventative medicine.
kasha34Feb 5, 2012
"There is not nearly enough competition between providers"
There are 35 health care insurers. Here's a list of some:
http://www.insuranceproviders.com/how-many-health-insurance-companies-are-there-in-the-united-states/
We not allowed to buy across state lines. That's what limits the choices.
"there isn't any real way for people to figure out what the differences are"
It is difficult. I'd be in favor of more transparency. Maybe a certified number showing the percent of premium dollars that comes back as health care services.
and there is definitely no way for people to predict when they will need certain services.
"One of the core ideas of Obamacare is that there must be a minimum standard to all healthcare services."
There are tons of minimum standards already. Mostly mandated by the states. That's a big part of what makes premiums so high. The profit percent is extremely low. We could confiscate all the profit and it would barely be noticeable in the premiums.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 5, 2012
"We not allowed to buy across state lines. That's what limits the choices."
Fine, allow them to be bought across state lines (although that smacks of too much federalism). Nobody really wants that restriction.
And will the catholic church pay for any one of them if you work for one of their institutions?
"There are tons of minimum standards already."
Yup, and that's another one, mandated by the feds. Done.
"Mostly mandated by the states. That's a big part of what makes premiums so high. The profit percent is extremely low."
Wrong - the premiums are high because in US the overhead is huge. It's very well known and researched - there is nothing new about it. The profit margin is low because the system is so f**ked up that 20-30% of the money goes towards administration. Because you have such a f**ked up mess in the healthcare system.
Which is neither here nor there, since that's a whole other conversation.
kasha34Feb 5, 2012
Oh, another Brit or Canadian or something.
Look, the left has been pitching single-payer here for decades. We've heard the sales presentation a hundred times.
No thank you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
geejayeFeb 5, 2012
elimgarak - I agree with all - except I see selling across state lines as a race to the bottom.
Health insurance corporations are only driven by profit. They will make deals with those states that give them the least regulations and start selling these low-cost policies with minimal coverage across the country.
This is fine for those who don't think they need the coverage (mostly people in their 20's) - until they DO need the coverage.
Furthermore, now that the more profitable 20-somethings are buying cheaper and cheaper policies, that increases the health insurance costs for the sicker and older.
In the end, we the tax payers lose, as the tax payers will need to pick up the tab when the cheaper policies don't pay and when people can't afford their policies.
geejayeFeb 5, 2012
"Look, the left has been pitching single-payer here for decades...No thank you"
Yup - because it is SO much better to pay 20-30% of your premium to: help pump up the CEO's $15M salaries; pay for the outrageous dollars spent on lobbying; contribute to their huge Super Pacs; and pay for rooms full of people combing through your file to deny you coverage.
And, even more, it is great that you get to spend twice the amount for your medical and get far worse medical outcomes. See http://peltiertech.com/images/2009-12/Spend-Life-XY2.png for an example - that little red dot with the "US" on top shows the high dollars you spend, and the infants that will die with that premium (where are the "pro-lifers" now?)
So yes - let's keep shilling for the health insurance corporations. Where would we be without them?
/s
elimgarakFeb 5, 2012
@geejaye
"They will make deals with those states that give them the least regulations and start selling these low-cost policies with minimal coverage across the country."
Wait, wouldn't a health insurer need to meet the minimum standard of the state it is selling in before being allowed to do business there?
geejayeFeb 5, 2012
"Wait, wouldn't a health insurer need to meet the minimum standard of the state it is selling in ?"
Not that I see:
In 2009, the Republican talking point was that lower prices could be obtained with cross-state shopping due to the ability to duck regulations:
"The Republican bill says consumers may be able to buy "less expensive" policies in other states because of variations in laws and regulations. While some states may require insurers to pay for a particular treatment of autism, for example, others don't. Insurers bristle at many of these mandates, saying they drive up costs, but studies generally show their impact on rates is limited."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120276553
If they had to meet the regulations of the state they were selling in, what would be the benefit of going to another state?
tyhoFeb 5, 2012
"For conservative Catholics, Obama merely confirmed their darkest suspicions; for liberals, it was a betrayal in full."
Hopefully this is a mistake Catholic Liberals won't soon forget. The sleeper has awakened.
Note to all of you Progressive and Atheists in full celebration mode, this will undoubtedly be struck down by a unanimous vote by the S.C., as was the Hosanna-Tabor case. It also contributes to the "anyone-but-obama" vote, aka generic republican. The election cannot come soon enough.
Maybe after November Obama can get a job on Current TV and you losers can listen to him drone on to your hearts content.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
netantFeb 5, 2012
Sadly, there's no way there's enough Catholics to seriously threaten Obama's chances for re-election. Of course, Obama could lose some significantly Catholic electoral states. And yet, even I am finding a problem believing most Catholics have a problem "requiring" organizations with Catholic Church affiliation from providing contraception TO THEIR EMPLOYEES. Looks like Obama will keep NY in 2012.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tyhoFeb 5, 2012
Obama is already threatened, regardless of Catholics. The only thing he has going for him is the complicit media that will do their best to destroy GOP chances. Thankfully with Fox, talk-radio, and blogs, Libs will never again be able to completely control the narrative.
Obama will keep NY? Wow your really going out on a limb making that prediction. /sComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
partrowFeb 4, 2012
Don't worry, Catholics. Obama will pander to you with some kind of announcement in which he proposes something very beneficial for your group before the elections.
Then he will turn around and tell the public that if Congress doesn't pass it, it is not his fault. Then he will tell Congress "don't screw it up".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 5, 2012
Since congress refuses to pass just about everything, and screw up constantly and rather predictably, that would be a really transparent move.