Catholic Church v Obama over mandatory health insurance

[hadespussercats]

This story pisses me off so much; employers should not be able to pick and choose what medications are deemed "acceptable". By picking on contraception, they're exposing their ignorance to how it works and what its used for. Birth control pills are simply hormone pills that can help women with a variety of medical problems not just preventing pregnancies. What are the women supposed to do who have ovarian cysts?? Or chronic pain during ovulation?? I know from experience, that when you're stuck in bed all day long because you're frozen in pain and vicodin barely takes the edge off; having some religious cunt tell you "sorry, but jesus doesn't like birth control. . . here's another dangerous and highly addictive narcotic for your pain" is infuriating.

I bet the Church is totally down with Viagra, though.

[hadespussercats]

This story pisses me off so much; employers should not be able to pick and choose what medications are deemed "acceptable". By picking on contraception, they're exposing their ignorance to how it works and what its used for. Birth control pills are simply hormone pills that can help women with a variety of medical problems not just preventing pregnancies. What are the women supposed to do who have ovarian cysts?? Or chronic pain during ovulation?? I know from experience, that when you're stuck in bed all day long because you're frozen in pain and vicodin barely takes the edge off; having some religious cunt tell you "sorry, but jesus doesn't like birth control. . . here's another dangerous and highly addictive narcotic for your pain" is infuriating.

I bet the Church is totally down with Viagra, though.

Even though Paul said even married people shouldn't have sex more than they could help it-- that whole "celibacy is best, but if you have to have sex, get married so you won't burn in hell" bit. (paraphrase)

[anna09]

This story pisses me off so much; employers should not be able to pick and choose what medications are deemed "acceptable". By picking on contraception, they're exposing their ignorance to how it works and what its used for. Birth control pills are simply hormone pills that can help women with a variety of medical problems not just preventing pregnancies. What are the women supposed to do who have ovarian cysts?? Or chronic pain during ovulation?? I know from experience, that when you're stuck in bed all day long because you're frozen in pain and vicodin barely takes the edge off; having some religious cunt tell you "sorry, but jesus doesn't like birth control. . . here's another dangerous and highly addictive narcotic for your pain" is infuriating.

I bet the Church is totally down with Viagra, though.

Oh, I'm sure they are! Viagra doesn't murder babies.

[Warren Dew]

Whom are you suggesting should choose what medications are deemed "acceptable" ?

The individual being treated.

[Seth]

This story pisses me off so much; employers should not be able to pick and choose what medications are deemed "acceptable".

It's their money, why shouldn't they get to pick and choose what they want to offer you by way of compensation? If you don't like the compensation package your employer offers, then find another employer or go buy your birth control pills on your own time.

By picking on contraception, they're exposing their ignorance to how it works and what its used for. Birth control pills are simply hormone pills that can help women with a variety of medical problems not just preventing pregnancies. What are the women supposed to do who have ovarian cysts?? Or chronic pain during ovulation?? I know from experience, that when you're stuck in bed all day long because you're frozen in pain and vicodin barely takes the edge off; having some religious cunt tell you "sorry, but jesus doesn't like birth control. . . here's another dangerous and highly addictive narcotic for your pain" is infuriating.

Nothing's preventing you from going to a doctor, getting a prescription for "hormone pills" and taking as many of them as you like, is there? Nope. You just want someone else to pay for it rather than paying for it yourself.

That's what this is about. It's about politics and the expansion of the Progressive Executive State where Obama and his unelected minions get to tell religious employers that they must pay for "free" birth control medication for their employees. Now it's been modified to apply only to "insurers," but that's no real change because the employer still has to subsidize the "free" contraceptives in violation of the employer's religious and economic rights.

Aside entirely from the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause considerations, there's a much larger and more important consideration here. It's the Fifth Amendment's proscription on government takings: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." By mandating that an employer, or insurer provide "free" contraceptives to women (men are being discriminated against here by the way) the government is taking the employer's money and is using it for a public purpose without compensating the owner of that money for the taking.

Moreover, the federal government has no authority whatsoever to require any insurer or employer to provide any health care or insurance in the first place. It's outside the mandate of the Constitution.

Your argument is false because it implies that you, or another person, has a "right" to contraceptives at no cost provided by an employer or insurer. You don't. You have a right to obtain contraceptives on YOUR OWN DIME any time you please, so by all means do so.

But forcing religious employers to pay for contraception when it's against their religious principles, even by shifting the mandate to the insurers (many Catholic organizations are self-insuring) is a clear First Amendment violation. But women are not precluded from obtaining the contraceptives, they just have to pay for it themselves and get it from a doctor not associated with the employer.

What, exactly, is wrong with that?

[Seth]

Whom are you suggesting should choose what medications are deemed "acceptable" ?

The individual being treated.

Actually, the doctor treating the individual AND the individual being treated, at the expense of the individual being treated, not as the expense of someone else who may object to paying for that medication.

Unless you have a voluntary contract (and legal mandates remove the "voluntariness" and therefore the contract obligation IMO) with your health insurer to provide a particular treatment or medication, you have no right to expect your insurer to pay for treatments or medication.

Insurance covers listed perils within specified policy limits. If you want more coverage, pay more in premiums or find another insurer. And read the contract before you sign.

If your insurance doesn't cover contraception, then FFS go to a clinic, get a scrip for free or minimal cost, and go buy the contraceptives YOURSELF, on your dime.

[Seth]

Anna, God will reward their suffering in Heaven.

Oh yea, I forgot about that part.

It's also good for denying cancer treatments, blood donations, organ donation, and giving a fuck about other human beings.

It's a contract. It's in writing. Read the fucking thing before you sign it and if you don't like the restrictions then find another insurer...or employer.

[Seth]

... Parity for treatment of mental illness has only lately become a supportable issue. For a long time (and still) insurers did not cover treatment for mental illnesses to the same level as physical illnesses.

And why should they? Insurance is not an "all perils" contract offer unless you're willing to pay for the additional risks that the insurer faces from having to cover that peril. That's how insurance works, including health insurance. No insurer is a charity that can afford to give away free money for just any peril suffered by a client. It's a hard, cold actuarial calculation: The insurer calculates the aggregate risk faced by the insured pool of clients and fixes the premiums based on their ability to make money and stay in business because only a few of the members of the pool will require the most expensive compensation for a loss.

Mental illness is widespread, expensive to treat, long-term (often lifetime), and therefore is a poor risk for an insurer to to have to cover. Why should an insurer cover mental illness if they are going to lose money on the peril? You are perfectly free to go get mental health assistance on YOUR dime, so you're not being deprived of anything merely because you can't get someone else to pay for it.

Insurance companies only cover mental illness because of entirely unconstitutional laws that mandate that they do so, so you're lucky in that regard. But that doesn't make the laws anything but blatant socialist redistributionism at the expense of private companies who would not choose to provide such coverage if they didn't have to.

Worse yet, people who take advantage of mandatory mental health benefits provided involuntarily by their insurers are stealing directly from the other people in the insurance pool by causing necessary increases in premiums to cover the costs of covering mental health treatment. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and your treatment is "given" to you at other people's expense. And then there's the law of supply and demand. Because mental health treatment is mandated, many, many more people are seeking to make use of that benefit, often for frivolous reasons, simply because it's available and they have "paid for it." This caused increase in demand for such services, which causes an increase in the price of the service, according to well-known free-market principles, which is exactly why medical care in general is becoming increasingly expensive.

Over-consumption of a limited resource by people who feel they are "entitled" to use health care for every little thing from a splinter to the sniffles because they pay a huge monthly premium for "insurance" that isn't insurance at all, but is actually nothing more or less than pre-paid health care with a use-it-or-lose-it provision.

You want mental health counseling, pay for it yourself. Nobody's stopping you, and that way you won't be stealing from others to get your "free" care.

Does the church still teach that mental illness is a result of demon possession? If they did, would it then be proper for them to offer employees insurance that didn't offer any mental health coverage, where at least some coverage is the norm? I don't think so. The reason the church is getting away with this is because they can, not because it's right. Sadly, people within the church and outside are willing to make judgements about other people's lives, basically on the back of their own insecurity about issues of reproductive rights; if the church decided that chemotherapy was against their religion, not a single body in the church would stand with them.

So? If nobody will stand with them, then what's the problem? All those people can leave the church, find another employer, or pay for their chemo themselves. Just because you WANT some particular medical coverage does NOT mean that you are entitled to get it at someone else's expense. You can pay for it yourself if you want it so badly.

A health insurance contract is like any other contract. It's a limited agreement about what the insurer will provide by way of health care services, it's not a one-sided obligation for them to pay for absolutely any and every medical need you might have...unless that's in the contract and you're willing to pay the premiums that reflect the risk that the insurer faces with such coverage. That sort of policy is available, but it's expensive because the risks faced by the insurer are high and the potential costs ruinous, so they price the coverage accordingly.

You can't rationally expect a private, profit-making company to throw good money after bad without considering it's profit bottom line. They wouldn't remain in business very long if they had to pay for anything and everything that might go medically wrong with someone.

So, they reasonably and rationally limit their exposure, and they put the conditions in writing in the contract you sign when you take out the insurance.

Read the contract. If you don't like the benefit limits, either negotiate different limits (for additional cost) or find another way to pay for your medical care.

It's just that simple.

[Warren Dew]

Whom are you suggesting should choose what medications are deemed "acceptable" ?

The individual being treated.

Actually, the doctor treating the individual AND the individual being treated, at the expense of the individual being treated, not as the expense of someone else who may object to paying for that medication.

The doctor should have a say only to the extent that the individual being treated permits it. The individual should be the ultimate decision maker; the doctor is merely a hired consultant to whom some decisions may be delegated by the individual.

Agreed regarding payment. The employer should pay the money to the employee rather than buying the insurance directly, and the employee is then free to buy whatever health insurance or fee for service care fits her needs. The tax and regulatory system should not penalize this arrangement as it does in the U.S.

[Seth]

Whom are you suggesting should choose what medications are deemed "acceptable" ?

The individual being treated.

Actually, the doctor treating the individual AND the individual being treated, at the expense of the individual being treated, not as the expense of someone else who may object to paying for that medication.

The doctor should have a say only to the extent that the individual being treated permits it. The individual should be the ultimate decision maker; the doctor is merely a hired consultant to whom some decisions may be delegated by the individual.

Agreed regarding payment. The employer should pay the money to the employee rather than buying the insurance directly, and the employee is then free to buy whatever health insurance or fee for service care fits her needs. The tax and regulatory system should not penalize this arrangement as it does in the U.S.

It's exactly the same argument as school vouchers.

The health care insurance industry was started during WWII when FDR prohibited employers from offering higher wages than the federally-mandated wage structure, part of his New Deal socialism/progressivism.

Employers found a loophole, which was to offer highly-paid valuable employees like top engineers and creative people "health care" as a benefit. Since offering to pay for health care wasn't legally a "wage" the plan got past FDR's ham-handed manipulations of the economy (the ones that extended the Great Depression by perhaps a full decade). But is was originally only for top-level employees. It wasn't until much later that other Progressives in government made it a requirement that large companies offer "HMO" coverage to all employees, which was an entirely unconstitutional act.

And we see the results of that government meddling today with skyrocketing health care costs caused by over-consumption of limited resources and the laws of supply and demand.

Give the money to the employee and let them be frugal with it and decide for themselves how and when to get medical care, like it was for most of recorded history. That works well as the free market for medical care responds nicely to supply and demand by keeping costs down when consumers are smart and frugal about using scarce resources.

That's what Whole Foods does, gives their employees something like $5000 per year that they can use for health care purposes deductibly, and it lets them keep the balance (which is taxed as income if they do) if they don't use it. It's a great plan that encourages frugality and good judgment in obtaining health care. They can buy into a company-subsidized HMO or they can get their care a la carte, but the decision is up to them and Whole Foods' health care costs are much lower than in other companies as a result.

[Tero]

So far no health insurance companies have offered good deals to individuals. The policies are more expensive. Since employers are self insuring...using the insurance company as manager... They have better control of costs.

If no employers insured workers, individuals would join co-ops to bargain for insurance together. It might work.

[Seth]

So far no health insurance companies have offered good deals to individuals.

Gee, do you suppose that means that health insurance is a high-risk business and that the costs of paying claims is prohibitive for some illnesses? What a concept.

The policies are more expensive.

That's a good indication that health care insurance is not a good idea. It only exists as a result of government mandates. Without such mandates, HMO's wouldn't exist.

Since employers are self insuring...using the insurance company as manager... They have better control of costs.

If no employers insured workers, individuals would join co-ops to bargain for insurance together. It might work.

Gee, what a good idea! Individuals voluntarily contracting with one another, what a...Libertarian...concept. How about people create a MEDICAL coop instead and cut out the middle-man insurer who does nothing but increase the costs of health care. Or, they could just let the power of the markets bring prices down through competition among medical care providers by negotiating for themselves with various providers for their own medical care.

[Warren Dew]

If no employers insured workers, individuals would join co-ops to bargain for insurance together. It might work.

Exactly. That's exactly how small business insurance worked in Massachusetts, until Obamacare banned it.

[apophenia]

Warren, the question is not who decides what treatment to apply in individual cases, but who should decide which treatments are deemed acceptable for requiring some sort of mechanism to see that they get paid for, say if somebody needs a triple heart bypass (for the third time). Who decides how many bypass surgeries are too many and thus support insurers, clinics and hospitals in turning away and refusing patients who have already had two heart bypasses. I have no qualms about a hospital refusing to give an uninsured walk-in a sex change operation, a tummy tuck, or a breast enlargement. Who decides what are essential medical needs and what are acceptable, sanctioned treatments for them or not? And as far as cost goes, Seth, three triple bypass operations are expensive, the individual likely won't survive ten years anyway, and that money buys a hell of a lot of Prozac. I say cut em off. You people with physical health problems, quit stealing my mental health dollars. I'm tired of subsidizing all you heart and lung problems, people with back problems, etc. I agree with Seth, you shouldn't be taking my mental health insurance premiums, and spending them on somebody who can't breathe because they sucked tobacco smoke for 30 years. And people that drink too much. And people that have children. Costs of modern pregnancies, especially bad cases, are outrageous. I never plan to have kids, and I want someone to put a stop to allowing you breeders your little accidents. Haven't you heard of adoption? Plenty of children need a home, and it doesn't cost your insurer a dime. How can you be so fucking selfish?

1930-1940: The Birth of Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Blue Cross: Hospital Insurance

As the demand for hospital care increased in the 1920s, a new payment innovation developed at the end of the decade that would revolutionize the market for health insurance. The precursor to Blue Cross was founded in 1929 by a group of Dallas teachers who contracted with Baylor University Hospital to provide 21 days of hospitalization for a fixed $6.00 payment. The Baylor plan developed as a way to ensure that people paid their bills. One official connected with the plan compared hospital bills to cosmetics, noting that the nation's cosmetic bill was actually more than the nation's hospital bill, but that "We spend a dollar or so at a time for cosmetics and do not notice the high cost. The ribbon counter clerk can pay 50¢, 75¢, or $1 a month, yet.... it would take about twenty years to set aside a large hospital bill" (The American Foundation 1937, p. 1023).

EconomicHistory.net: Health Insurance In The United States (20th century)

I think we can get Seth a guest spot on a future episode of Fringe. He's obviously living simultaneously in several alternate timelines. It'd be great!

[Seth]

Warren, the question is not who decides what treatment to apply in individual cases, but who should decide which treatments are deemed acceptable for requiring some sort of mechanism to see that they get paid for, say if somebody needs a triple heart bypass (for the third time). Who decides how many bypass surgeries are too many and thus support insurers, clinics and hospitals in turning away and refusing patients who have already had two heart bypasses.

If you can pay for three, or six bypasses, and the hospital has the resources to do them, why shouldn't you get them?

I have no qualms about a hospital refusing to give an uninsured walk-in a sex change operation, a tummy tuck, or a breast enlargement.

How about the government paying to have breast implants removed?

Who decides what are essential medical needs and what are acceptable, sanctioned treatments for them or not?

The doctor and the patient. That's how it should be. Doctors examine patients and then tell them what medical care they need, and what it will cost, and patients decide whether they can afford the treatment. What's wrong with that model? It's worked for a good many years until government started meddling. Once that happened you started to get other people besides the doctor and patient involved in deciding what care someone was going to be allowed to have because the patient was no longer paying for the care. Once you shift the economic burden to someone else, regardless of who that might be; a government, an insurer or anyone else, they have a vested financial interest in limiting their costs by limiting the care that will be made available.

Next thing you know it's Death Panels all over the place, as we see is the case in all socialized medicine countries like the UK, and increasingly here.

And as far as cost goes, Seth, three triple bypass operations are expensive, the individual likely won't survive ten years anyway, and that money buys a hell of a lot of Prozac. I say cut em off.

If they're paying for it, why should they be cut off? If YOU'RE paying for it, well, now you see the conundrum don't you?

You people with physical health problems, quit stealing my mental health dollars.

And there it is. When someone else is paying, and is rationing care, as is ALWAYS the case, fierce competition for the limited resources results and some people are denied care.

I'm tired of subsidizing all you heart and lung problems, people with back problems, etc. I agree with Seth, you shouldn't be taking my mental health insurance premiums, and spending them on somebody who can't breathe because they sucked tobacco smoke for 30 years. And people that drink too much. And people that have children. Costs of modern pregnancies, especially bad cases, are outrageous. I never plan to have kids, and I want someone to put a stop to allowing you breeders your little accidents. Haven't you heard of adoption? Plenty of children need a home, and it doesn't cost your insurer a dime. How can you be so fucking selfish?

I agree. I'm tired of subsidizing the health care costs of others. I have plenty of my own problems to worry about and deal with. It's not my problem if you need a heart bypass or Prozac, it's YOUR problem, so YOU pay for it.

Nobody yet has provided a rational and well-founded argument as to why I should be forced to pay for medical care for someone else I don't know other than "But, but, but...you MUST pay, it's not fair that they don't get care."

Who told them that life was fair?

1930-1940: The Birth of Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Blue Cross: Hospital Insurance

As the demand for hospital care increased in the 1920s, a new payment innovation developed at the end of the decade that would revolutionize the market for health insurance. The precursor to Blue Cross was founded in 1929 by a group of Dallas teachers who contracted with Baylor University Hospital to provide 21 days of hospitalization for a fixed $6.00 payment. The Baylor plan developed as a way to ensure that people paid their bills. One official connected with the plan compared hospital bills to cosmetics, noting that the nation's cosmetic bill was actually more than the nation's hospital bill, but that "We spend a dollar or so at a time for cosmetics and do not notice the high cost. The ribbon counter clerk can pay 50¢, 75¢, or $1 a month, yet.... it would take about twenty years to set aside a large hospital bill" (The American Foundation 1937, p. 1023).

And so long as participation is voluntary, I have absolutely no problem with it. It's when government gets involved in mandating exactly what will or will not be covered by that PRIVATE CONTRACT, and when it tries to require that everybody join the pool that the problems occur. Government meddling in the affairs of private health care insurers is a blatant and obvious violation of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, which says: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." (Emphasis added)

If telling a private health care insurer that they are required to provide contraceptives isn't "impairing the obligation of contracts" I don't know what is.

I think we can get Seth a guest spot on a future episode of Fringe. He's obviously living simultaneously in several alternate timelines. It'd be great!

You fail to understand the distinction between private health care arrangements, whatever they may be, and government interference with the health care industry as an attempt to "socialize" medicine. The former utilizes the free markets to keep costs down and allow people to pick and choose the medical products and providers they want, the latter drives up costs enormously, creates gross inefficiencies and unfairness, rations limited resources, and decides who lives and who dies based on the economic cost of their care.

I prefer the former, it's way cheaper and has created, in this country, the finest most advanced medical care on the planet.