The big picture on birth control mandate

It is ironic that many of those who have argued that the Church and the government should stay out of the bedroom now want the government to compel the Church to subsidize what goes on in the bedroom.
 
This is the ultimate government overstep. Now I understand why the Catholic Church is upset about it but the problem I have with the Catholic Church is that they're so late to the game. They know that Nancy Pelosi (ironically a Catholic at least in name) would be pushing this kind of issue when she was getting her giant bill passed with the cover of darkness.
 
Thank you for articulating an important distinction that has unfortunately been lost in the coverage of this debate. This should not be about religious freedom; it should be about personal freedom. I want the right to choose a health insurance plan that doesn't provide coverage for things I don't need. I don't need contraceptives, family planning, "women's wellness visits," or any of the other items now mandated by the Obama administration (and if I understand correctly, this is not Obamacare, but rather the Obama administration's HHS using powers given to it by Obamacare to make this ruling). Unfortunately I no longer have a *choice* and will instead be paying for these items through my increased premiums and not using them. That is, in the end, a tax, no matter how convoluted the process by which it is collected.
 
The really fun thing (and fun in a sad perverse way) has been watching the administration attempt to spin this without backing off what they want to do. They "want to listen to the concerns of everyone" and "work out a timeline that will work for everyone" - but in the same breath they confirm that they aren't changing the plan. "You're still going to have to do it, but we ARE listening to you. We just don't think it's something you should be offended about."

Is it arrogance or a complete inability to grasp the idea of why people have a problem with this? The idea that this is acceptable if we give people a little more time to "figure it out" is insulting to say the least. And the doublespeak that goes into trying to spin this as being about religious freedom is ridiculous, and yet typical.
 
i'm against this not for religious reasons but for reasons of common sense. one of the main reasons government plans cost too much is that they take on too much and dont allow for any personal choice. when you force people to pay for medical decisions that are someone's personal choice, the cost exponentially increases. the car insurance example is a good one and its affordable for a reason. the plans dont factor in the personal choice of the type of tires, oil or transmission oil used. insurance doesnt pay for those things at all. they pay if your car gets damaged. the personal choice of car maintenance is up to the individual. whether or not someone should get the convenience of a birth control pill is a personal choice. it has nothing to do with healthcare. why do they not get this simple concept?
 
Good thread. You can tell the points it makes are on sound footing by the make up of the people contributing to it.

I have always thought that there could be a governmental role in providing (or underwriting) catastrophic health coverage for all citizens. That is, individuals purchase private insurance up to losses equaling X, then the catastrophic policy kicks in after X and the private insurer is out of the picture.

Legislators could have worked this out. Sadly, Obamacare was done in order to beat the clock due to Ted Kennedy's seat coming vacant and the fact that the Ds knew the were in for a beating in 2010.
 
The sodomizing Catholic Church has lots of credibilty. I guess it was also religious freedom that allowed them to cover up all the abuses too. Their principles ring hollow here even though I agree with the prior posters in general
 
Completely agree gecko. I think the governmental "safety net" is the way to go. Then, people can decide for themselves if they want or need insurance for cover things not on that scale. What is so wrong with just PAYING for the services you use when you use them.
 
Obama's little presser was nice. of course, he left without taking any questions and it appears on the face of everything nothing really changed. i agree that contraceptives should be available to all that want it, the same as property, free speech, etc. of course, you have to purchase property, the same as you should have to purchase contraceptives. even communist countries require some form of payment. i think this is a huge reach for the government to make here. 40% of the country doesnt care and would probably prefer the government and so called "rich" pay for everything. lets hope we can keep the majority for a few more years.
 
Nice of him to permit us to keep our religious freedom for now. Again, the debate in the news will NEVER touch on whether he has/had the right to do this, but how politically savvy he was in so ably "handling" this situation.

I hope come election time that people don't forget that not once have they backed down on their right to curtail whatever religious freedoms they want. Their strategy has been and will be to continue to challenge every chance they get and only stop when someone stops them - ask Eric Holder about that one.

As I mentioned in another thread, the presidency has been inching closer and closer to a dictatorship for a long time (before Obama ever showed up). Presidents can flout the constitution, end-run the congress and no one bats an eye anymore. We find it easier to just accept it than stand up and say that if you as president ignore the law, you will be impeached or sensured.
 
Glad this crisis has been finally settled. I could really care but just want our government to get back focused on the real problems out there.
 
Problem is, it's not settled. The precedent has been set that this is the President's authority to give up. In addition, all we've now done is moved the cost from one column to the other.

The Catholic church gets to "wash its hands", but if you read the OP, this issue is still here. You're still making an argument based on the idea that if it's good or useful, it should be FREE! And the fact is that insurance simply does not work the way it should when it is expanded to cover things you're buying anyway or that you will be purchasing regularly. It means costs will go up (funny... I thought the point was to do the opposite). Why don't we also include toothpaste, aspirin, vitamins... basically any thing that is considered healthy and needful? Let's just pay for all of it!

Not to mention, how does this not put Catholic organizations at a disadvantage. Since everyone else HAS to do it, that means the insurance companies will NOT have to step in and pay for it in those cases. I'm not an expert, but I'm thinking that there could be a lot of consequences in terms of insurance companies and the government steering people to "acceptable" care providers.
 
I could really care but just want our government to get back focused on the real problems out there.
__________________________________________________

This could be tough since whenever the government tries to address a problem, they usually create a few more along the way.
 
Prod?
From a financial standpoint won't insurance companies just raise rates to include the cost of birth control and abortions etc?

For sure insurance companies won't cut their profits to provide these services " free"

Who will be fooled by this?
 
i was looking through my medicine cabinet. perhaps the president should force insurance companies to pay for bandaids, rubbing alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, healing ointments, cotton balls, cue tips, aspirin, over the counter medicines, etc. i'm guessing it in now the opinion that all healthcare related products are now entitlements.
 
I did not see the press conference, so did Obama back down? He would be foolish not to, and let this drag on.

I completely agree with the above comments that birth control should not be an insurable event. People have every right to use birth control, there is not an issue there, but that Obama, and I guess some people here, think that third parties should be compelled by the government to pay for your birth control is breathtaking.
 
I know bo thought the church would be satisfied
but what fool really thinks the insurance companies will offer it for free?

and what about those religious institutions who self insure

and as is pointed out this still doesn't address the trampling on the constitution.

does the south african consti guarantee free abortions and bc?
 
i don't know why i didn't catch this from reading his ' accommodation" speech
but he just made it that ALL companies insurers must give the stuff free directly to the customer

How ignorant is he to think We will think it is free and comes from the obama stash
Good lord, first he ignores the constitution , then he insults most of us. I am sure there will be some, even some on here who thinks it really will be free
 
so Mich
how many insurance companies are right now giving free birth control and abortions?
name one

if it is something they know is so good how many are doing it now
 
There could definitely be a financial benefit for an insurance company to provide free birth control, which, when averaged out, could certainly be less than paying for prenatal and postnatal health care costs. But this is not something that should be dictated by the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top