[ihasa]

I think the whole lot of Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Christian Scientists are raving mad but I respect their constitutionally protected right to be crazy.

They do not have a constitutional right to inflict their beliefs on others, which is exactly what happens when an employer excludes certain procedures from his healthcare plan for employees (which may or may not share his beliefs) on religious grounds. The individual should have a right to opt out of certain procedures if they wish though - that's a right the government should be protecting.

---

Last edited by ihasa; 02-22-2012 at 08:07 AM.

[GeneV]

American and Canadian politics are different, abortion is one of the hottest of the hot button issues here.

If it is left up to the private insurance cartel, birth control and probably abortions too would be happily covered since they are way cheaper than the cost of child birth and because large families don't bring in more revenue than small families but large families do consume more health care. The decision to not cover this is made by the employer who chooses the group health insurance plan and I'd be willing to wager that they paid more to exclude contraception.

The same thing could happen with other religious groups such as not being able to get kosher or halal medicine that is more expensive than the standard medicine. Chrisian Scientists made a big stink over the individual mandate because they do not believe in modern medicine therefore, they are being forced into buying insurance for something they will not use.

I think the whole lot of Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Christian Scientists are raving mad but I respect their constitutionally protected right to be crazy.

Yes and no. I agree that the religious issue is mostly from the employer, not the insurance company. I also question the alleged economics of birth control costs to the insurer.

However, if it is left up to the insurance cartel, then people with pre-existing conditions will be rejected or charged prices which they cannot bear. The free market answer to this problem was to bundle the risks and sell in large employer pools. This places the insured at the mercy of the employer's prejudices.

My biggest criticism of the health care reform is that it left the employer-based system largely intact. By requiring rating by locality instead of individual health conditions, the plan could have done away with the need for employer health benefits, and gotten more benefit from the markets in the private system which the plan left largely in place.

[mikemike]

Yes and no. I agree that the religious issue is mostly from the employer, not the insurance company. I also question the alleged economics of birth control costs to the insurer.

The doctor and hospital bills for my baby born last year (******l delivery with epidural) were over $10,000, with a HDHP we paid out ~$3400 and insurance paid out the balance. Birth control pills range from $25 for the generic versions to $60 for the high end stuff and you still have to pay a co-pay. Currently, my wife is on a generic that is safe for breast feeding and the copay for that is $10 normally she takes loestrin 24 which has a $50 copay. So the monthly cost for BC pills to the insurance company is $10-15. If you divide the monthly cost into the cost of giving birth to a child you can pay for 440-660 months (36-55 years) of birth control pills with those savings.

We aren't sure whether or not we want to have another child but we know that we don't want to have one for a while so we will probably switch over to the depo shot which effectively costs less per month until we decide for certain and once we are done I will probably get vasectomy. If a girl starts taking the pill when she becomes sexually active, does not take the pill when she isn't in a sexual relationship, and switches to more permanent contraceptive treatments like depo, IUD, or tubal ligation once they are satisfied with their family size I would estimate an insurer is looking at ~$2000 for a lifetime supply of birth control per heterosexual woman.

[ihasa]

The controversy here is that the pills are an effective prevention against ovarian cancer and therefore are appropriate for healthcare treatment plans to provide.

[mikemike]

They do not have a constitutional right to inflict their beliefs on others, which is exactly what happens when an employer excludes certain procedures from his healthcare plan for employees (which may or may not share his beliefs) on religious grounds. The individual should have a right to opt out of certain procedures if they wish though - that's a right the government should be protecting.

To an extent, they do. Think about holidays, if an employer is Jewish they may decide that everyone should get rosh hashanah and yom kippur and instead should work on christmas and good friday even if you are a christian. I don't see that as hugely different than making you pay an extra $10-15/month for your contraception. If I ever start a business, I as an atheist will decide that instead of any of those religious holidays we will take my birthday and another day (I'm thinking the Monday after the superbowl) as holidays so that I can inflict my atheist beliefs on others.

[ihasa]

The choice of what day to have off as a company holiday is a much different issue than the provision of healthcare though! If you're my Jewish employer, I'm not going to argue getting Yom Kippur off work, and I will take an annual holiday on Christmas-Boxing Day.

[dgaies]

The doctor and hospital bills for my baby born last year (******l delivery with epidural) were over $10,000

Somewhat off-topic, why is the word v-a-g-i-n-a automatically censored? Seems a bit silly to me.

[GeneV]

The doctor and hospital bills for my baby born last year (******l delivery with epidural) were over $10,000, with a HDHP we paid out ~$3400 and insurance paid out the balance. Birth control pills range from $25 for the generic versions to $60 for the high end stuff and you still have to pay a co-pay. Currently, my wife is on a generic that is safe for breast feeding and the copay for that is $10 normally she takes loestrin 24 which has a $50 copay. So the monthly cost for BC pills to the insurance company is $10-15. If you divide the monthly cost into the cost of giving birth to a child you can pay for 440-660 months (36-55 years) of birth control pills with those savings.

We aren't sure whether or not we want to have another child but we know that we don't want to have one for a while so we will probably switch over to the depo shot which effectively costs less per month until we decide for certain and once we are done I will probably get vasectomy. If a girl starts taking the pill when she becomes sexually active, does not take the pill when she isn't in a sexual relationship, and switches to more permanent contraceptive treatments like depo, IUD, or tubal ligation once they are satisfied with their family size I would estimate an insurer is looking at ~$2000 for a lifetime supply of birth control per heterosexual woman.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, when I said I question the alleged economics, I was agreeing with you and questioning the claim by the church that the employer is really paying extra for this coverage.

On the other hand, the same thing could be happening that happens with preventive care. People change jobs every few years, so Insurance companies think that the children (like the future diseases which could be prevented) will be some other company's problem.

[redrockcoulee]

Mike

But your concerns about government involvement in deciding which procedures will be covered depending on politcal party in power or budgets is faced all the time in the other 15 of the 16 leading industrial nations without the problem you are worried about. Do politicians decide on what is covered by your Medicare or Medicaid now based on ideologies? I ask as I do not know.

[mikemike]

Mike

But your concerns about government involvement in deciding which procedures will be covered depending on politcal party in power or budgets is faced all the time in the other 15 of the 16 leading industrial nations without the problem you are worried about. Do politicians decide on what is covered by your Medicare or Medicaid now based on ideologies? I ask as I do not know.

So far as I know, abortion is not covered for anyone who gets coverage from the US Government as an employee, soldier, veteran, medicare enrollee (although some states provide this coverage with their own money), medicaid (this is a non-issue as everyone on medicaid is all dried up), or indian health service. So if you use coverage of abortion as a measure of whether or not coverage is provided based on ideology, yes. I don't know about elective plastic surgeries such as sex changes but I suspect that it is not covered and if there was ever a push to provide it there would be a knockdown drag out fight.

[redrockcoulee]

So far as I know, abortion is not covered for anyone who gets coverage from the US Government as an employee, soldier, veteran, medicare enrollee (although some states provide this coverage with their own money), medicaid (this is a non-issue as everyone on medicaid is all dried up), or indian health service. So if you use coverage of abortion as a measure of whether or not coverage is provided based on ideology, yes. I don't know about elective plastic surgeries such as sex changes but I suspect that it is not covered and if there was ever a push to provide it there would be a knockdown drag out fight.

Perhaps I should not have used abortion as an example however it is even here a controversial subject. The point I tried to make is that if changes from a left to right wing provincial government does not change abortion coverage why would poltiticians barge into other procedures or medications? Of course none woule be opposed to fixing broken arms but the politicians have some say in what gets covered but it is extremely difficult for them to remove items afterwards although our provincial govt did for how much of medications they paid for seniors but again it was not per individual types of drugs but percentage of coverage. Of course seniors do not have abortions or need birth control but a government could just as easily cut out a certain med for them if they could based on ideology. The point is that they really don't. Why your government wants to cut out on things they do not even pay for stumps me. But then so does the exteme fear of governments that Americans often seem to have.

[mikemike]

How timely, we have an example of abortion getting preferential treatment in the law. Pharmacies must stock and distribute morning after pills but no other prescription drugs receive that special treatment.

Judge strikes down law mandating sale of contraception | Reuters

[redrockcoulee]

How timely, we have an example of abortion getting preferential treatment in the law. Pharmacies must stock and distribute morning after pills but no other prescription drugs receive that special treatment.

Judge strikes down law mandating sale of contraception | Reuters

Or perhaps no other drug needs a law mandating it to make it available to the public. Places that have only one place to purchase drugs would otherwise be at the mercy of the owner's beliefs. Now it is not up to the individual to decide for themself but perhaps owners of drug store chains that make the decision for you. Progess?

Same reason there is usually no reason for rules or laws to protect those in the majority and in power from those who are in the minority and have no power.

[ihasa]

Last spring, a state judge in Illinois struck down a similar law requiring pharmacies to dispense emergency contraception. A handful of other states, including California, New Jersey and Wisconsin, have laws requiring pharmacies to fill all valid prescriptions, but loopholes allow pharmacists with moral objections to refer the patient to another drugstore.

Six states explicitly allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives, and several more have broad right-to-conscience laws that provide some protection to pharmacists as well as to other healthcare professionals.

Appears to be a state issue. FWIW I think an individual pharmacy's right not to stock a drug on religious grounds is fair enough. People can obtain that drug via other means I guess - I mean, they can find another store that isn't run by retards who think that preventing implantation is the same thing as abortion. We also have this opt-out in this socialist hell-hole you call the UK....

[Nesster]

I understand Democrat Women are set to hold hearings on male reproductive issues. Covered will be mandatory rectal probes / prostate palpitations plue 48 hour 'think it over' periods before being permitted viagra and similar, and requiring the local newspapers to print lists of men prescribed these drugs. No men will be allowed to testify.