In the latest edition of USA Today, Richard Garnett, a professor of law and associate dean at the University of Notre Dame, explains why the contraception mandate should be scrapped:
James Madison, the “Father of our Constitution,” believed that America’s distinctive commitment to religious liberty “promised a lustre to our country.” And, for more than two centuries, we have been trying — sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing badly — to prove Madison right.
In recent months, this effort has been playing out in the context of new rules, recently proposed by the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services, that would interpret the 2010 health care law to require all new insurance plans to cover
contraceptives, sterilization and even some abortioncausing drugs. A wide range of groups and citizens from all over the political spectrum have filed comments with the department, urging changes to these proposed regulations. A final decision is expected soon.
November 28th, 2011 | 11:31 am
Naaa, the right has already gotten their way too much with health care reform without giving up on anything of their own. They even got exceptional anti-abortion provisions that go above and beyond anything ever done before and in return those supporting health care reform got nothing but stonewalling opposition.
November 28th, 2011 | 12:18 pm
Should Muslim organizations be able to set up health plans that don’t cover treatment for alcoholism?
November 28th, 2011 | 12:39 pm
As Rousseau says, ““Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”
His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu'on le forcera d'être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”
To allow religion to be used as a cloak for evading the general laws applicable to all citizens is to turn faith into faction and to encourage a form of communitarianism, with ethnic and religious solidarities and allegiances threatening to override republican unity. If the rights of citizens are to vary in accordance with their religious affiliations, how is the republic one and indivisible?
November 28th, 2011 | 12:40 pm
“Should Muslim organizations be able to set up health plans that don’t cover treatment for alcoholism?”
What principle of Islam indicates that treatment of alcoholism is in any way wrong?
November 28th, 2011 | 1:00 pm
“Should Muslim organizations be able to set up health plans that don’t cover treatment for alcoholism?”
Ray,
Are there Muslim organization out there who object to treatment for alcoholism?
November 28th, 2011 | 2:49 pm
Ray,
A better analogy might be a Muslim health plan that wouldn’t cover any medication that might have alcohol in it.
To my knowledge, there’s no medical or psychological program covered by insurance that entails drinking alcohol. The moment one gets approved I’ll sign up for it though :).
A more serious question is to what degree do you get to lay claim over other people’s lives on the grounds that you are in an insurance pool with them?
In the case of abortion and contraception, I think in terms of health care plans it lowers the plans medical expenses (either are cheaper than paying for live birth). Therefore if you’re against abortin or contraception and you have a health insurance plan that covers it, your premiums are probably lower because of that. So instead of subsidizing something you hate, you’re actually benefiting from it. If you’re really serious about this then such plans should give you an alternative billing option that adds to your monthly bill whatever the estimate portion of your savings would be.
Now look at something else, childbirth. I think just about every plan covers it. So let’s just imagine you’re in a plan and so is your neighbor, a lesbian couple. They go to a fertility clinic and have a child! They pay for the clinic themselves but the childbirth is paid by the same plan you are in!
So to what extent are you subsidizing this ‘lifestyle’? After all most months you pay more to the plan than you have in medical expenses….so aren’t you in some sense subsidizing this lesbian person who uses the plan to help finance the child? Hmmm…
It doesn’t take too much to see the strange type of socialism this logic leads you too. If you have an insurance policy you own everything in it! If you have homeowners insurance, you not only get to run your own house but everyone else’s! If you have an auto policy you not only get to drive your own car but everyone else’s too! Ditto for life, health and everything else.
This type of “I put in $1 so I own the whole thing socialism” can be applied elsewhere. Did you buy a lottery ticket and loose? Well guess what, the guy who won is boozing it up on wine, women and song and your dollar is part of the money he’s using for that vice! Your money!!!! Agghhhhh!!!!!
Taking a step back, it seems pretty obvious what the problem here is with this reasoning. Property rights. You buy the lottery ticket, you give up your dollar for a ticket. That’s it. The dollar ceases to be yours and whoever gets it next is responsible for its wise use, or unwise use. Likewise when you buy insurance, you’re buying a type of lottery ticket. Get really sick this month? Insurance pays more than you pay it. Don’t? Then you pay more than you get back in benefits. That’s it. Once you pay for coverage, whatever else the insurance company does with its money is about its money. Your moral claim ends with your payment, otherwise we venture into an absurd land where no one ever gets to actually have their own money because some busybody who had the money before will be trying to set some terms and conditions on them.
November 28th, 2011 | 2:51 pm
From the article, a hope that the administration will change. Oh, would that real Hope (the virtue) would ever be so strong!
The administration has made it clear that it will not change. We need to change administrations, so let us not waste the opportunity, which is less than a year away.
November 28th, 2011 | 3:56 pm
pentamom – Apparently so.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907680/posts
“Some Muslim medical students are refusing to attend lectures or answer exam questions on alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases because they claim it offends their religious beliefs.”
November 28th, 2011 | 3:58 pm
Whoops, my prior response was addressed to JDD. For pentamom, I suppose you’d have to ask them.
November 28th, 2011 | 4:53 pm
Ray,
Yes, you’ll have to ask them to support your argument.
In your article, the only statements from Muslim organizations I can find are not in agreement with the students.
November 28th, 2011 | 7:01 pm
JDD – I wasn’t making an argument. I was asking a question. Apparently at least some Muslims don’t feel comfortable treating alcohol-related and sexually-transmitted conditions.
But even if we assume that’s not the case, let’s imagine a hypothetical religion that frowns on alcohol consumption the way, say, Roman Catholicism frowns on contraception. (Call ‘em ‘Musmons’, say. Or ‘Morlims’ if you prefer.)
Should they be able to set up health plans that don’t cover treatment for alcoholism?
November 28th, 2011 | 8:43 pm
Ray,
A couple of other plausible scenarios:
Suppose a Jehova’s Witness organization provides insurance to employees who are both members of the faith and nonmembers. Should they be able to provide insurance that doesn’t cover the cost of blood transfusions (to which they are religiously opposed)? Or (and there was an actual case similar to this) suppose you are a Jehova’s Witness and need a blood transfusion, but there is a rare and expensive drug that might be of some help in doing what the forbidden transfusion was supposed to do. Is it the obligation of an insurance company to pay for alternative medical treatment for someone who refuses standard treatment?
Should an organization run by Scientologists be able to provide insurance coverage that will not cover treatment by psychiatrists or the cost of psychiatric drugs?
November 28th, 2011 | 9:41 pm
Ray, the problem is, providing someone with a means to do that which is considered sin, is not parallel to treating sick people who have *in the past* committed what are deemed to be sins and now need methods of treatment that do not in any way require participation in sin, in order to be effective.
If your scenarios were parallel, Catholics would frown on treating people for STDs, or cancers or other damage possibly induced by the use of contraception. They don’t.
David’s questions are more on point, and I guess my answer is, “I don’t see why not.”
Anyone who voluntarily works for an organization with relatively strict religious views, whose job mission includes providing services in line with those views, really should not be asking the organization to deny its own principles so that they can be provided for in a certain way. And that’s leaving aside the question of whether, except in exceptional cases, contraception is a “medical” issue at all, rather than a lifestyle option.
November 29th, 2011 | 7:33 am
Is pregnancy a disease?
November 29th, 2011 | 7:48 am
Ray
But even if we assume that’s not the case, let’s imagine a hypothetical religion that frowns on alcohol consumption the way, say, Roman Catholicism frowns on contraception. (Call ‘em ‘Musmons’, say. Or ‘Morlims’ if you prefer.)
The problem with your hypothetical is that a prohibitionist religion would like treatment for alcoholism since that would tend to reduce or eliminate drinking by drunks!
What you need for your hypothetical to make coherent sense is a religion that embraces drinking! They would certainly object to ‘treatments’ that discourage it! How about using the Rastafarian movement/religion for your example. They use cannabis as part of their religious beliefs. How would they like a health plan that had drug treatment programs that prohibit patients from smoking pot!
Pentamom
David’s questions are more on point, and I guess my answer is, “I don’t see why not.”
You’re free to do more or less anything you want. So if Jehova’s Witness created some type of mutual health plan that covered treatments designed to avoid blood transfusions,
However the question is can we have a system of universal coverage that includes blood transfusions…even if Jehova’s Witness won’t use that treatment? I say yes. There is no religious liberty issue here just as there’s no issue with Medicare and Medicaid covering blood transfusions…even though Jehova’s Witness on those plans would decline transfusions if doctors say they needed them.
Again at some point a line has to be drawn and we have to say enough is enough. You’re free to decline any type of medical treatment or drug that happens to be covered by insurance but freedom here does not include trying to boss around other people in the same plan on the grounds that ‘you’re paying for them’. If not then this is a door that swings both ways. Since people in your health plan are also paying for you, they too can claim an interest in trying to order around lifestyle choices of yours that they don’t like and there’s no logical reason to limit that just to religious beliefs. Just about anything and everything would be fair game.
November 29th, 2011 | 9:10 am
The medical difference between blood transfusions and contraception is that the former is typically necessary on an emergent or urgent basis, while contraception in the form of birth control pills, depo, IUDs, etc., is purely elective.
In my four years of medical school, 3 years of residency, and 8 years of medical practice, I have yet to see a emergency room scenario involving a crashing patient who demands stat birth control pills.
November 29th, 2011 | 10:18 am
The medical difference between blood transfusions and contraception is that the former is typically necessary on an emergent or urgent basis
If a doctor felt that blood transfusion was the wrong way to treat the presenting problem, would he be forced to do the blood transfusion?
Because ultimately that’s what’s at stake.
There are three questions that I see.
First: what if the physician disagrees with the authorities that the problem is in fact a problem and should be fixed? Does the government have the right to compel you to fix a problem that you don’t view as a problem?
Second: even if the problem should be fixed, what makes a problem “medical”?
Where do words like ‘medical’ or ‘healing’ derive their meaning from?
Does the government have the power and authority to make a non-medical thing medical by simply calling it medical? (If they passed a law saying that dying one’s hair is a “medical” procedure because it carries “medical” risks, would that make it medical, because the government says so?)
The third problem is, does the government have the power and authority to tell people HOW they must fix a particular problem?
Is medicine going to be a universal thing where there is only one legally allowable diagnosis for a particular presenting problem, even when that diagnosis involves value judgments?
Does the government have the right to blur the distinction between science and fact – between “if/then” on the one hand and “should” and “ought” on the other?
Because science is incapable of determining “should”. It can only deal in facts, not in morals. Any science that is capable of saying we “ought” do this or that in a given situation is a dishonest science: it is pretending to be neutral and objective when it is really hiding the value judgments that its “ought” rests upon.
You can have no “should” and no “ought” without supporting assumptions, and you can have no assumptions without someone making moral judgments.
November 29th, 2011 | 10:31 am
The medical difference between blood transfusions and contraception is that the former is typically necessary on an emergent or urgent basis
Contraception is legally viewed as medicine, but if “medicine” equals “healing”, then it is not “healing” because it is dealing with a preference, not curing a disease or healing a wound.
If we are going to treat the words “medical” and “healing” to include everything that is related to living a good life, then the words will mean nothing at all, because everything we do and every choice we make can be related to the idea of living a good life.
The simple solution is to recognize that rights are not all at the same level. The right to life is more fundamental than the right to conscience, and that is the entire argument behind why medical providers are held to an exceptional standard.
But that exceptional standard exists because its function is about dealing with medical providers who have a special responsibility because they are responsible for sick and wounded human bodies. This is a situation that is both urgent and important. Trying to exploit this exceptional standard for reasons that are not primarily about caring for sick and damaged human bodies, but are really motivated by a desire to find an end-run around a controversial political issue by tampering with supply and demand in manipulative ways, is an abuse and needs to be recognized as such.
November 29th, 2011 | 10:34 am
freedom here does not include trying to boss around other people in the same plan on the grounds that ‘you’re paying for them’.
Would you feel the same way if the majority voted for medical plans that cover treating homosexuality?
Even if it included incarcerating the homosexual against his will?
November 29th, 2011 | 10:38 am
“Is pregnancy a disease?”
No. However, I think we should allow for the fact that in exceptional cases, pregnancy can induce lethal disease states.
And also, that chemical contraception is not only used to prevent pregnancy, but in some cases, does treat disease.
However, those are the exceptions, for which exceptions could be made, not the rule.
November 29th, 2011 | 12:20 pm
The state has already decided that the provision of certain contraceptives is a medical procedure by (1) prohibiting their sale or supply, without a prescription bearing to be signed by a registered medical practitioner, (2) prohibiting their being dispensed, other than by a registered pharmacist and (3) by specifying the qualifications of a such persons and maintaining the registers.
November 29th, 2011 | 2:07 pm
Michael PS — but the state could be wrong.
November 29th, 2011 | 2:10 pm
Or perhaps, a better way to put it, is that contraception may be a medical procedure, but that does not mean it (ordinarily or most commonly) treats a medical issue.
That it fits somewhere in the realm of medicine is reasonable, because it does act on the function of the human body; that it is comparable to life-saving or health-supporting procedures and therefore should be morally evaluated on the same basis as something like cancer drugs, flu shots, arthritis medication, or blood transfusions, is much less obvious.
November 29th, 2011 | 2:11 pm
The state has already decided that the provision of certain contraceptives is a medical procedure by (1) prohibiting their sale or supply, without a prescription bearing to be signed by a registered medical practitioner, (2) prohibiting their being dispensed, other than by a registered pharmacist and (3) by specifying the qualifications of a such persons and maintaining the registers.
The state can’t make an untrue thing true.
It is outside the scope of their authority.
The state has the power to establish regulations, to issue or withhold licenses, to set up databases, to bestow titles. But it does not have the power to make a lifestyle choice be equal to a medical procedure.
November 29th, 2011 | 2:13 pm
“Since people in your health plan are also paying for you, they too can claim an interest in trying to order around lifestyle choices of yours that they don’t like and there’s no logical reason to limit that just to religious beliefs. Just about anything and everything would be fair game.”
All of this ignores the possibility that if there were more flexibility in health coverage, there could conceivably emerge a broader market in which I would happily contract to insure myself only with other people who wouldn’t charge me for their abortions, or a likewise for a JW and blood transfusions. What would be so terrible about that? It’s the existence of all these mandates that creates this issue in the first place.
November 29th, 2011 | 3:16 pm
Mary
The medical difference between blood transfusions and contraception is that the former is typically necessary on an emergent or urgent basis, while contraception in the form of birth control pills, depo, IUDs, etc., is purely elective.
On the flip side having babies is entirely elective as well. Why should a person with one or two kids not object when a person who, say, has five kids starts adding the costs of birth and coverage to the pool?
Blake’s 3 questions
First: what if the physician disagrees with the authorities that the problem is in fact a problem and should be fixed? Does the government have the right to compel you to fix a problem that you don’t view as a problem?
Are you aware of how insurance works? Either private or public? Medicare covers blood transfusions. The gov’t doesn’t order the doctor or patient to get a transfusion. The doctor orders it and Medicare gets billed. You don’t get insurance forcing any type of treatment on anyone. The only problem might be when the insurance company disagrees with the doctor over something the doctor may think is needed. For example, writing a script for an expensive new brand name drug when the insurance company thinks the old generic does just as good a job.
Second: even if the problem should be fixed, what makes a problem “medical”?
If you need a doctor to do a procedure or write a script it’s medical. Condoms would not fall under medical but birth control pills would. Likewise contraception that requires a doctor or health care professional to implant would also be medical.
Does the government have the power and authority to make a non-medical thing medical by simply calling it medical? (If they passed a law saying that dying one’s hair is a “medical” procedure because it carries “medical” risks, would that make it medical, because the government says so?)
Not really a very clear question. What exactly is the context here? Some procedures carry risks that may become medical (say getting a piercing) but generally can be done with reasonable safety by a non-healthcare professional. Other procedures carry serious medical risk unless they are done by a HCP. That seems to be the distinction. You don’t need a doctor to use a condom. On the other hand prescribing birth control pills probably requires someone with at least a bit of formal medical training (maybe not a full doctor, an NP will probably do).
The distinction between ‘lifestyle choices’ and pure ‘medical procedures’ is blurry to begin with. Consider insulin for a diabetic. One uses a lot every month, the other very little. Is that because the two have different levels of the disease? No, one diabetic doesn’t watch her diet very well, indulging in sugars and carbs all the time requiring more insulin to control her diabeties. The other watches her intake carefully and as a result can manage with much less medication. Clearly insurance coverage is, to some degree, financing what are essentially lifestyle choices for the more lax patient.
Would you feel the same way if the majority voted for medical plans that cover treating homosexuality?
Wouldn’t that fall under ‘mental health coverage’? Last time I checked, insurance that covers mental health visits doesn’t ask to see the doctor’s notes on what you talked to him about.
Even if it included incarcerating the homosexual against his will?
I don’t think insurance should pay for incarcerating homosexuals against their will. I also don’t think it should pay for making people use contraception against their will. If you find an insurance plan that does either, let me know and I’ll oppose it.
pentamom
All of this ignores the possibility that if there were more flexibility in health coverage, there could conceivably emerge a broader market in which I would happily contract to insure myself only with other people who wouldn’t charge me for their abortions, or a likewise for a JW and blood transfusions. What would be so terrible about that? It’s the existence of all these mandates that creates this issue in the first place.
This defeats the purpose of insurance as its logical end point is you ‘insure yourself’ for whatever medical procedures you need or want which is just another way of saying you pay for them yourself. This also blurs the distinction with property rights. No one ‘charges you for their abortions’ unless you have people who ask you to help pay for their abortions directly. You are charged by your insurance company for coverage of yourself, period. When you pay for your insurance it ceases to be ‘your money’ and becomes the insurance company’s money….period again. Keep it up in the other direction and there’s no end to the absurdities you get yourself into. Goto McDonalds? Whose to say those making your fries aren’t using their paychecks to get abortions? That’s your money no? No its not. It’s not your money once you get your fries.
For purposes of universal coverage, a basic package of services should be covered. Beyond that you can have all the speciality plans you want that cover or don’t cover things. You can, for example buy supplemental Medicare coverage that pays the co-pays, or provides coverage for extra experimental treatments for things like cancer that isn’t normally covered.
November 29th, 2011 | 4:26 pm
Are you aware of how insurance works? Either private or public? Medicare covers blood transfusions
And now the question is whether insurance will be required to cover conditions that are not medical, and doctors will be required to provide non-medical treatment.
Contraception is not a medical procedure. It may seem like one, because it affects the body and carries risks, but ultimately it is not about healing the body, maintaining wellness, or fixing or curing any sort of sickness or disease. It is about altering the body so that a person can indulge in sexual activity without the body responding as the body is supposed to respond to sexual activity.
Abortion is also not a medical procedure. No woman’s life ever required the death of an infant. There is absolutely no medical reason why an infant that would otherwise live should be killed.
Sex change operations, nose jobs, breast implants, tattoos, and other bodily mutilations are not medical, either – not unless “medicine” is stretched to suggest that any tension between what our bodies are vs. what we wish they were is somehow “medical”.
It is very important to recognize the distinction between what is required for bodily health vs. what is merely a desire.
Failure to distinguish between what is an actual “need” vs. what is only a desire – a “want” – is the essence of greed. It is greedy to insist that not only are you entitled to whatever you want, but that you are entitled to expect it to be paid for, and that you are entitled to force other people to violate their beliefs so that you can have what you want.
And it is because there is a difference between a “need” vs. a “want” that it is just plain dishonest to pretend that contraception is somehow the same as a blood transfusion. One is a life-saving medical procedure, while the other is a purely optional lifestyle choice that does not improve one’s health in any way; the reason for pursuing it is not because it is necessary medically, but only mutilates the body in ways deemed desirable.
And, of course, the motive behind this whole push is not that there is a real problem with anyone not having access to birth control. The motive is entirely about hatemongers bullying people out of their beliefs, or bullying them out of their jobs.
November 29th, 2011 | 6:05 pm
“This defeats the purpose of insurance as its logical end point is you ‘insure yourself’ for whatever medical procedures you need or want which is just another way of saying you pay for them yourself.”
You can’t get that reductio out of my position. My position is only that you choose insurance that doesn’t cover some things, and does cover other things, but does not require you to predict which of the covered things you wish to or plan to use. Does doing that really “defeat the whole purpose of insurance,” or is that what ALL insurance policies with coverage limits by definition DO? If that’s the logical endpoint of my plan, it’s the logical endpoint of any plan that doesn’t cover any thing that any person might at some point conceivably decide they want paid for, which is to say, any kind of insurance.
November 29th, 2011 | 7:34 pm
Boonton, nobody has a moral objection to having babies. Many people object to contraception, and it is the official position of the Catholic Church. Because of this, and because contraception is elective and so easy to obtain, coverage should not be mandated.
In my years of practicing medicine, I have never met a woman who has not been able to find contraception if she wanted it. The argument that so many people seem to be making, that if health plans sponsored by the Church don’t provide coverage for hormonal contraceptives, women will go without their pills, is just absurd. Women may have to pay more for them, but that is a not an unrealistic concession to have to make in a pluralistic society.
November 29th, 2011 | 7:57 pm
So this raises an interesting question….suppose I want to unbundle McDonald’s meal’s and just buy the burger and fries…..means I should pay less right? But what if the price of the bundle is set by making the burger and fries breakeven or even loss leaders and the drink the real source of the profit?
From McDonald’s POV, I should get no discount since they literally save only a fraction of a penny by not giving me the drink. From my POV, I’m getting less so I expect a discount of some type.
It seems odd then to say to an insurance company “I won’t use blood transfusions, give me a discount”. Can the insurance company really calculate what it would save by not providing you with transfusions? I’m not sure it can and you’re not quite asking for it to do that, you’re saying “I won’t use blood transfusions, don’t offer it to others”…..
As an issue of liberty, I’m not seeing a convincing case being made. So we don’t have a liberty issue we are left with a universal coverage issue. I don’t object to JW’s declining blood transfusions, I do object to cluttering the ‘standard plans’ with endless menus of ‘do and don’t cover’.
I suppose I could live with a contraception optional provision if it was part of a deal. Drop the opposition to universal coverage and agree on some sensible definition of what exactly it means to ‘be forced to subsidize’ and I’d go for it. Abortion got an above and beyond compromise where plans have to break abortion into a different line item which you have to write your own seperate check for and for being willing to make a deal (note that it doens’t work this way for employer provided insurance, you don’t get taxed on some portion of your employer’s healthcare premium that covers abortion…assuming such a thing can be calculted), the left got absolutely nothing in exchange but grief.
November 30th, 2011 | 4:23 am
Blake
“The state has the power to establish regulations, to issue or withhold licenses, to set up databases, to bestow titles. But it does not have the power to make a lifestyle choice be equal to a medical procedure.”
But it does have the power to legislate that they shall be treated in the same way.
November 30th, 2011 | 4:40 am
In my years of practicing medicine, I have never met a woman who has not been able to find contraception if she wanted it
Does anyone seriously doubt that the whole point of this is motivated 100% by intolerance toward Christian beliefs?
You can always tell when the Left is out to control and manipulate: it always starts with redefining words and then acting outraged that anyone would not agree with their newly minted definitions.
This is not about providing anyone with anything. It is about bullying people with the “wrong” beliefs, and taking control, and establishing that the government will dictate what we are to believe.
The problem is, it’s only the beginning. Once we’ve de-linked the idea of “medicine” from the actual concept of healing – and have redefined it in such a way that lifestyle choices are prioritized above actual medical necessities (e.g. we have the money to provide birth control and sex change operations, but not to provide dialysis), where will it end? Have you ever known the Left to be content with “enough already”?
November 30th, 2011 | 8:37 am
“It seems odd then to say to an insurance company “I won’t use blood transfusions, give me a discount.”
I haven’t heard anyone suggest that everybody get to call up their insurance companies and ask for discounts on existing plans, based on agreements not to use covered services. I think you’re making up that scenario out of your own head.
The proposal is (as it has been until quite recently) that insurance companies ought to be able to create plans that don’t include certain coverages *for anyone,* and that groups or individuals ought to be allowed to purchase those plans if they choose, and that the government ought not to be able to insist that all plans must have all coverages.
December 1st, 2011 | 8:16 am
Does anyone seriously doubt that the whole point of this is motivated 100% by intolerance toward Christian beliefs?
Yawn, does anyone seriously believe this? I mean really.
This is not about providing anyone with anything. It is about bullying people with the “wrong” beliefs, and taking control, and establishing that the government will dictate what we are to believe.
Who exactly is being bullied and how? As we’ve seen elsewhere, whenever Blake talks about freedom, he never means freedom for you. Infringing on freedom always and only means Blake seeing things go the way he wants and nothing else.
and have redefined it in such a way that lifestyle choices are prioritized above actual medical necessities (e.g. we have the money to provide birth control and sex change operations, but not to provide dialysis), where will it end?
Let’s just say this really happened. What would you do? Buy a private insurance policy that covers dialysis or make sure you amass a large nest egg of savings in case you ever need dialysis.
Right now, for example, Medicare doesn’t pay for fertility treatments but it does pay for dialysis. What’s a 65 yr old woman who wants to become the world’s oldest women to give birth to do? Well she uses Medicare if she needs dialysis but buys her a private policy that covers fertility treatment (if she can find one). By your standards she’s being ‘bullied’ by those pesty kidney patients who need dialysis or pesty Christianists who won’t pay for pushing the fertility into the 60 age range. By my standards she has coverage for dialysis which is a good thing to have covered. If she doesn’t want to use it, well that’s her option.
pentamom
I haven’t heard anyone suggest that everybody get to call up their insurance companies and ask for discounts on existing plans, based on agreements not to use covered services. I think you’re making up that scenario out of your own head.
Well you’re proposing a market of competiting ‘standard’ plans that offer to cover and not cover different things. An issue I have with this is that its already hard enough to compare insurance plans with their varying levels of co-pays, in and out of network doctors and ‘gatekeepers’ who approve and deny requests for specialists, treatments and so on.
So say you have a plan for JW’s which does not cover blood or organ transplants. In a huge menu of competiting plans it may appear a lot cheaper causing a lot of people to sign up. Next thing you know when they discover they need it they are hit with a $3,000 hosipital bill because the plan doesn’t cover it. So we are back to the same old same old….you either don’t get treatment if you don’t fork up money in advance or hospitals have to eat the costs of trying to collect huge bills from essentially uninsured patients.
I think its much easier to have a standardized plan with minimial sources of variation (and its not like there’s little variation, co-pays, in/out network policies etc. all make comparing two ‘like’ plans on cost very difficult already). If you want coverage for things above and beyond that you’re free to buy whatever you want and whatever the private market offers.
The proposal is (as it has been until quite recently) that insurance companies ought to be able to create plans that don’t include certain coverages *for anyone,*
Not sure which proposal you’re talking about here. Generally the plans that your employer typically offers do have to meet certain min. requirements. If they don’t they can still be offered but they wouldn’t be treated as ‘nontaxable income’. Most ‘bread and butter’ health insurance plans, of course, would rather be sold in that market than speciality markets (but speciality markets do exist)
December 1st, 2011 | 2:30 pm
“Not sure which proposal you’re talking about here. ”
Sorry, I simply meant “the argument being proposed,” that is, what’s being said.
An example of this would be….everything up until the contraception mandate takes effect. Like the way it is now, where it is not mandatory for all plans to include contraception.
I’m not talking about an endless menu of possibilities luring in all kinds of people. I’m talking about not violating the consciences of people who are operating on a basis of something stronger than “I don’t want to pay for that to save money,” but rather “I don’t want to be contributing to a pool of money that winds up doing something that is highly morally abhorrent to me.”
Really, the idea that providing for long-established matters of conscience should be so controversial is fairly disturbing.
December 1st, 2011 | 5:21 pm
As we’ve seen elsewhere, whenever Blake talks about freedom, he never means freedom for you.
I am not opposed to birth control.
I simply don’t want it mis-classed as medicine.
I don’t want scarce resources directed away from legitimate health concerns to subsidize your promiscuity, so that we can pretend that somehow promiscuity is healthy.
It’s right up there with being expected to pretend that war is peace.
As is so often the case, I don’t oppose your “freedom” except that you don’t just want the freedom to lie – go ahead! Lie all you want! But that’s not enough, is it? You want to force everyone else to accept your lie as true, and play along with it, and then you think I’m a terrible monster because I won’t pretend that there’s no difference between “need” and “want”, healing vs. mutilating, procreative vs. parasitic, honest vs. deceitful, healthy vs. dysfunctional.
And, of course, for all your going on about “freedom”, you certainly don’t intend for me to have freedom from whatever it is you are in favor of, do you? The minute “freedom” turns zero sum, “freedom” is something that I owe you (apparently you view people like me as NPCs in the MMO that is your life?)
December 2nd, 2011 | 1:40 pm
I’m not talking about an endless menu of possibilities luring in all kinds of people. I’m talking about not violating the consciences of people who are operating on a basis of something stronger than “I don’t want to pay for that to save money,” but rather “I don’t want to be contributing to a pool of money that winds up doing something that is highly morally abhorrent to me.”
I think at this point we need to draw a line. You aren’t ‘contributing to a pool’, you’re buying coverage just as the guy playing the slots at a casino isn’t ‘contributing to the jackpot winner’s drunken orgy’…he’s buying a chance, whether it wins or not . If he wins the jackpot and uses it for good works and charity, that’s to his credit, not the other gamblers who brought losing tickets. If he blows it on vices, that again is on him, not hte others.
There was a big compromise made on abortion in the health bill. I’m willing to entertain yet another on contraceptives but it has to be done under the right principle. You are providing yourself with coverage, not contributing to a pool where you claim responsibility for other people’s use of that coverage. Not drawing the line here simply opens the door to people like Blake who excel at nothing more than the endless production of ‘moral outrage’ to make any system terminally unworkable.
speaking of which:
I simply don’t want it mis-classed as medicine.
If it needs a script, its medicine. If it doesn’t it’s a medical device.
As is so often the case, I don’t oppose your “freedom” except that you don’t just want the freedom to lie – go ahead! Lie all you want! But that’s not enough, is it? You want to force everyone else to accept your lie as true, …
You’re free to classify anything anyway you want.
(apparently you view people like me as NPCs in the MMO that is your life?)
I hate to say this but I’m not really sure you are a person. During the SSM debates I’ve been starting to think you’re the fictional invention of a SSM advocate trying to discredit the anti-SSM side. I’m leaning against that hypothesis at the moment, though, you’ll be happy to know I think there’s at least a 75% chance you really exist as you depict yourself here!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact