Ship of Fools: Churches Sue American Government over Health Insurance Mandate

Thread: Churches Sue American Government over Health Insurance Mandate Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023089

Posted by Prudentius (# 11181) on :

As many of us have read, Notre Dame University, among many other colleges and dioceses, has filed suit against the federal government in regard to the mandate that health insurance include birth control coverage. This raises a couple questions in my mind.

1) Is it not hypocritical for the majority of American Catholics, who do not support or accept the Church's stance on birth control and have been practicing it for years, to remain silent as the denomination attempts to make a federal case out of a point on which its own membership is far from supportive of the Church party-line?

2) I have asked a few lawyer friends, none of whom have been able to find out, how does the Christian Science Church deal with medical insurance for its employees?

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prudentius:

1) Is it not hypocritical for the majority of American Catholics, who do not support or accept the Church's stance on birth control and have been practicing it for years, to remain silent as the denomination attempts to make a federal case out of a point on which its own membership is far from supportive of the Church party-line?

It would be hypocritical, yes, unless one sees it as resignation on the part of "civilian" RCs in face of the widening gap between them and their leaders. But I am sure that there will be a sizeable number -if not a "majority- of RCs who will **not** remain silent.

This being said, one has to see it in the current cultural context:

1) the setting is the US -where sueing is part of local folklore, and
2) this is the Catholic church. They are so set in their ways they can hardly do otherwise but speak up (and "speaking up" means "sueing" in the US context - see point 1)

Expect another round of low-flying teddybears, pouting self-righteous indignation on both sides and big profits for the lawyers.

Plus ça change... [Snore]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

There's a problem with the title of this thread. Churches as such are already exempt from the law in question. The institutions filing suit are, to borrow a phrase from blogger Scott Lemieux "institutions performing secular functions with taxpayer money and employing people of various faiths".

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Furthermore, the issue seems to be manufactured. Employer-provided health care, even in those faith-based organizations providing secular services w/ public $-- has been required to cover birth control for decades. The only change in the new health care provisions is that they need to do so w/o co-pay. But apparently covering 80% or 90% of one's birth control pills is just fine, but 100% is a serious moral lapse.

This looks very much to me like a few idealogues trying to exert their clout to pursue a political agenda. And in doing so, they are seeking to limit the individual freedom of female employees at these organizations, all the while framing it as a "religious freedom" issue with an affected victimization.

Further discussion would require a hell call.

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Furthermore, the issue seems to be manufactured. Employer-provided health care, even in those faith-based organizations providing secular services w/ public $-- has been required to cover birth control for decades.

Yes- birth control becoming a political issue has brought a lot of ugliness out of the woodwork. Xavier University in Cincinnati (Jesuit-affiliated) suddenly decided in April to end their insurance coverage of birth control and sterilization for employees as of this July.

The president of the university (who seems to have made the decision without any input from the community) is quoted as saying "...as a Catholic priest and as president of a Catholic university, I have concluded that, absent a legal mandate, it is inconsistent for a Catholic institution to cover those drugs and procedures the Church opposes."

Strangely he doesn't explain why, although he's been university president since 2001, he has just now noticed this inconsistency.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

It's an election year.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

It would be hypocritical, yes, unless one sees it as resignation on the part of "civilian" RCs in face of the widening gap between them and their leaders. But I am sure that there will be a sizeable number -if not a "majority- of RCs who will **not** remain silent.

The Church is not a democracy. If you don't like the rules feel free to leave.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
It would be hypocritical, yes, unless one sees it as resignation on the part of "civilian" RCs in face of the widening gap between them and their leaders. But I am sure that there will be a sizeable number -if not a "majority- of RCs who will **not** remain silent.

The Church is not a democracy. If you don't like the rules feel free to leave.

Which is fine. It is fine for faith-based organizations to set standards for their employees conduct, I work for such an organization. But that doesn't change the fact that the need for the govt to put some much-needed parameters around health care. If you want to tell your employees "we expect you, as good Catholics, not to use birth control"-- fine. Again, birth control has been in these organizations' health care plans for decades, it is only an issue because of the election.

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
It would be hypocritical, yes, unless one sees it as resignation on the part of "civilian" RCs in face of the widening gap between them and their leaders. But I am sure that there will be a sizeable number -if not a "majority- of RCs who will **not** remain silent.

The Church is not a democracy. If you don't like the rules feel free to leave.

Nice. Yeah I guess that's why people are packing up and leaving in record numbers.

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prudentius:

1) Is it not hypocritical for the majority of American Catholics, who do not support or accept the Church's stance on birth control and have been practicing it for years, to remain silent as the denomination attempts to make a federal case out of a point on which its own membership is far from supportive of the Church party-line?

Quite. The best available studies show that well over half of all Catholic adults in the United States have used birth control at some point. Presumably many who have not nonetheless support its use by others.

This demonstrates the problems with a top-down ecclesiology.

quote:

2) I have asked a few lawyer friends, none of whom have been able to find out, how does the Christian Science Church deal with medical insurance for its employees?

The situation is somewhat different as Christian Science does not have large numbers of secular employees.

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prudentius:
1) Is it not hypocritical for the majority of American Catholics, who do not support or accept the Church's stance on birth control and have been practicing it for years, to remain silent as the denomination attempts to make a federal case out of a point on which its own membership is far from supportive of the Church party-line?

Wow that's a very strange way to phrase it. I think the majority of American Catholics are hypocritical, yes. But the hypocrisy is on a much more basic level - people who claim to be Catholics and yet blatantly deny the doctrines which their Church obliges them under pain of mortal sin to believe. If these people are failing to oppose their bishops on birth control, well then for once they are actually doing what they were supposed to be doing all along!

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It is fine for faith-based organizations to set standards for their employees conduct, I work for such an organization. But that doesn't change the fact that the need for the govt to put some much-needed parameters around health care. If you want to tell your employees "we expect you, as good Catholics, not to use birth control"-- fine. Again, birth control has been in these organizations' health care plans for decades, it is only an issue because of the election.

Except that's not what's being argued in this case. This deals with whether an employer can use religious conscience to opt out of generally applicable labor laws. If that can be done, I'm imagining a "Church of No Minimum Wage" establishing itself, as well as the "Brotherhood of Unrestricted Toxic Dumping".

As I've already noted, employers are already allowed to restrict employees in this manner if religious adherence is a condition of their employment. Clergy come to mind as an obvious example. That is not true of the plaintiffs in this case. The problems of telling the Jewish woman who keeps the books at a Catholic hospital ""we expect you, as a good Catholic, . . . " should be immediately obvious.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I think the best response was made by Katherine Ragsdale, President of Episcopal Divinity School. She stated that offering coverage of contraception wasn't "endorsing contraception." Any church or faith organization is free to preach against contraception.

If Catholics want people to stop use birth control, they should preach it from the pews and use the power of persuasion rather than this heavy-handed political move.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It is fine for faith-based organizations to set standards for their employees conduct, I work for such an organization. But that doesn't change the fact that the need for the govt to put some much-needed parameters around health care. If you want to tell your employees "we expect you, as good Catholics, not to use birth control"-- fine. Again, birth control has been in these organizations' health care plans for decades, it is only an issue because of the election.
Except that's not what's being argued in this case. This deals with whether an employer can use religious conscience to opt out of generally applicable labor laws. If that can be done, I'm imagining a "Church of No Minimum Wage" establishing itself, as well as the "Brotherhood of Unrestricted Toxic Dumping".

As I've already noted, employers are already allowed to restrict employees in this manner if religious adherence is a condition of their employment. Clergy come to mind as an obvious example. That is not true of the plaintiffs in this case. The problems of telling the Jewish woman who keeps the books at a Catholic hospital ""we expect you, as a good Catholic, . . . " should be immediately obvious.

Yes, that was the point I was making. I am in favor of the new regs.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:

quote:

2) I have asked a few lawyer friends, none of whom have been able to find out, how does the Christian Science Church deal with medical insurance for its employees?
The situation is somewhat different as Christian Science does not have large numbers of secular employees. [/QB]

When the contraception issue first came up, an enterprising NYT reporter asked a colleague at the Christian Science Monitor about this. The CSM provides comprehensive health insurance for its employees.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
It would be hypocritical, yes, unless one sees it as resignation on the part of "civilian" RCs in face of the widening gap between them and their leaders. But I am sure that there will be a sizeable number -if not a "majority- of RCs who will **not** remain silent.

The Church is not a democracy. If you don't like the rules feel free to leave.

Not when the church-based body is in receipt of taxpayers' money. "He who pays the piper..."

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I think the best response was made by Katherine Ragsdale, President of Episcopal Divinity School. She stated that offering coverage of contraception wasn't "endorsing contraception." Any church or faith organization is free to preach against contraception.

If Catholics want people to stop use birth control, they should preach it from the pews and use the power of persuasion rather than this heavy-handed political move.

Katherine Ragsdale! [Killing me]

That's the same woman who described abortion as a blessing.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

quote:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CL:

The Church is not a democracy. If you don't like the rules feel free to leave.

No, it's not a democracy, thank heavens. But it is a process of pilgrimage. "Church" should really be a verb. And thus church membership should not be reduced to the strict clinging to monolithic statements uttered very much in function of the times (Lumen gentium etc).

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

OP'd by cliffdweller:

quote:
This looks very much to me like a few idealogues trying to exert their clout to pursue a political agenda. And in doing so, they are seeking to limit the individual freedom of female employees at these organizations, all the while framing it as a "religious freedom" issue with an affected victimization.

Not that I'm overly irate or anything, but this kind of talk strikes me as wrong. Whether they provide zero, 50%, 80% or 100% of the cost of the birth control, it has zero and less than zero to do with her freedom.

I am free to attempt to swim for half an hour at depths of 100 ft. under the ocean. But if I want to do it, I'd better buy some scuba gear. Still, I'm not going to haul off to my insurer or my government to demand that they pay for it. IMHO recreational sex (as much as I enjoy it and believe it is blessed by God) is exactly the same.

There, I got that of my chest.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
OP'd by cliffdweller:

quote:
This looks very much to me like a few idealogues trying to exert their clout to pursue a political agenda. And in doing so, they are seeking to limit the individual freedom of female employees at these organizations, all the while framing it as a "religious freedom" issue with an affected victimization.
Not that I'm overly irate or anything, but this kind of talk strikes me as wrong. Whether they provide zero, 50%, 80% or 100% of the cost of the birth control, it has zero and less than zero to do with her freedom.

Yes, but this is the wrong end of the stick. The attack is from the RC church on the medical coverage, not by women on the RC church. The RC church has paid for this coverage for many years. As Cliffdweller properly indicated, what is new is that there isn't a co-pay now. Are co-pays really a religious feedom issue? Or is this yet another example of the right-wing nutcases who control the RC establishment in this country injecting themselves into the political process in a stunningly dishonest way? I bet you can figure that one out...

--Tom Clune

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
OP'd by cliffdweller:

quote:
This looks very much to me like a few idealogues trying to exert their clout to pursue a political agenda. And in doing so, they are seeking to limit the individual freedom of female employees at these organizations, all the while framing it as a "religious freedom" issue with an affected victimization.
Not that I'm overly irate or anything, but this kind of talk strikes me as wrong. Whether they provide zero, 50%, 80% or 100% of the cost of the birth control, it has zero and less than zero to do with her freedom.

I am free to attempt to swim for half an hour at depths of 100 ft. under the ocean. But if I want to do it, I'd better buy some scuba gear. Still, I'm not going to haul off to my insurer or my government to demand that they pay for it. IMHO recreational sex (as much as I enjoy it and believe it is blessed by God) is exactly the same.

There, I got that of my chest.

Here's where we get to the nub. The U.S. government provides numerous tax incentives to employers who provide part of their employees' compensation in the form of health insurance. There's no requirement to actually provide such insurance, but if an employer wants to claim the tax credit, there are certain requirements that have to be met. In this case an employer providing a "prescription drug benefit" has to provide a benefit that actually covers prescription drugs. What this case is arguing is that employers with religious convictions can exempt themselves from any of the regulations governing insurance and still get the tax write-off.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Those things I can understand. My comment was very limited in scope. It was the "freedom" issue I was pointing out. And it may well have been a slip of rhetoric on cliffdweller's part.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Those things I can understand. My comment was very limited in scope. It was the "freedom" issue I was pointing out. And it may well have been a slip of rhetoric on cliffdweller's part.

And you stand by your assertion that having your prescription drugs double-checked by your employer and subject to his approval or disapproval doesn't impinge on anyone's freedom? That seems a particularly feudalistic formulation of "freedom".

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
... I am free to attempt to swim for half an hour at depths of 100 ft. under the ocean. But if I want to do it, I'd better buy some scuba gear. Still, I'm not going to haul off to my insurer or my government to demand that they pay for it. IMHO recreational sex (as much as I enjoy it and believe it is blessed by God) is exactly the same. ...

Birth control pills are also prescribed to treat various illnesses, not just for "recreational sex". So women are completely within their rights to demand these medications be part of their insurance plan. It's none of anyone's fucking business to make assumptions about why they are prescribed. OliviaG

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

We're not talking about blood pressure medication here. We're talking about something that (generally speaking) is taken as a matter of convenience. The point I was making had nothing to do with an employer reviewing someone's prescriptions, and I don't think that's any issue in this case either, whatever merits it may or may not have.

What I said was, there is no impingement on her freedom to choose to have sex by whether or not the prescriptions are paid for. I've paid for birth control methods so my wife & I could have sex recreationally. If we didn't want to pay for them we have two choices: No sex, or take a chance on getting pregnant.

And to reiterate, I'm not talking hard cases here, where it may be necessary to prevent pregnancy because the woman's health is too frail. I hope you see my point.

ETA: CP'd with OliviaG. You still aren't seeing my point, I happen to agree with you in that regard.

[ 29. May 2012, 17:18: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
We're not talking about blood pressure medication here. We're talking about something that (generally speaking) is taken as a matter of convenience. The point I was making had nothing to do with an employer reviewing someone's prescriptions, and I don't think that's any issue in this case either, whatever merits it may or may not have.

What I said was, there is no impingement on her freedom to choose to have sex by whether or not the prescriptions are paid for. I've paid for birth control methods so my wife & I could have sex recreationally. If we didn't want to pay for them we have two choices: No sex, or take a chance on getting pregnant.

And to reiterate, I'm not talking hard cases here, where it may be necessary to prevent pregnancy because the woman's health is too frail. I hope you see my point.

ETA: CP'd with OliviaG. You still aren't seeing my point, I happen to agree with you in that regard.

Yes, we get your point. It's about being able to peel off certain classes of medical treatment as trivial or a matter of "convenience", a loophole that can be widened later. ("Blood pressure medication! You wouldn't need it if you'd just lose weight!! Plus I hold religious beliefs against gluttony!!!")

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Hmmm, somehow I'm not saying something quite right to you. I could give a rip about the merits of the case. Somebody upthread mentioned that at issue is a tax credit that, if they want to take advantage of, they must provide the coverage of controversy here. Ok, so they have a choice. Either comply, or don't take the tax credit and do what you want. But in my construct here, their freedom is not being impinged in the slightest. Either comply, or don't take the tax credit and do what you think best.

And for that matter, it's already being discussed, the matter of having the obese, smokers, and what-not pay for the extra care they require. You certainly will pay more for life insurance. Is that not as it should be, if you are an extra risk? And I'm one of them, I struggle with my weight. Nobody's forcing me to overeat, so I "pays my money and takes my choices." And I pay for my medication, at least the co-pay. And I'm trying to lose the weight so I don't have to pay, etc. I'm not hollering about my freedom being taken away.

So if we come back to what OliviaG said about it being nobody's business, well, in one respect yes. In another respect, if I'm footing the bill, I have a say in what goes. Just as the Feds are doing with the church- if you want this credit, you must do X, Y, & Z.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Hmmm, somehow I'm not saying something quite right to you. I could give a rip about the merits of the case. Somebody upthread mentioned that at issue is a tax credit that, if they want to take advantage of, they must provide the coverage of controversy here. Ok, so they have a choice. Either comply, or don't take the tax credit and do what you want. But in my construct here, their freedom is not being impinged in the slightest. Either comply, or don't take the tax credit and do what you think best.

That's more or less at the center of the case. The employers in question are maintaining that it's a form of religious discrimination that they're forced to choose between not providing a prescription drug benefit claiming a tax write-off. Their contention is that they should be allowed to do both.

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
And for that matter, it's already being discussed, the matter of having the obese, smokers, and what-not pay for the extra care they require. You certainly will pay more for life insurance. Is that not as it should be, if you are an extra risk? And I'm one of them, I struggle with my weight. Nobody's forcing me to overeat, so I "pays my money and takes my choices." And I pay for my medication, at least the co-pay. And I'm trying to lose the weight so I don't have to pay, etc. I'm not hollering about my freedom being taken away.

Again, it's an argument for special treatment. Under any reasonably accurate actuarial analysis a health plan that includes contraceptive coverage should have lower premiums that one that doesn't, since even a lifetime of birth control pills is cheaper than nine months of pre-natal care, followed by an additional dependent on the plan for the next two decades. What these religious institutions are arguing is that:

1) It's religious discrimination for them to comply with the same prescription drug benefits law as any other employer.

2) It's also an infringement on their religious liberty if a third party (their health coverage provider) offers the forbidden benefits to their employees at no additional cost.

and

3) It would also be religious discrimination to charge them more money for a more actuarially-accurately priced plan without contraceptive coverage.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

TomOfTarsus, I hope you realize that oral contraceptives are prescribed for many medical conditions that have nothing to do with sex or pregnancy. I also hope you realize that a woman might not want to disclose to her employer that she has PMS, PMDD, a high risk of ovarian cancer, or heavy menstrual bleeding that has gone on for many weeks and is causing her to become severely anemic.

Would it help if we quit calling the medication "oral contraceptives" and started calling them "prescription hormone therapy"?

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

So it seems that we have some pretty substantial agreement here. Unfortunately, I'm not equipped to comment on the actuarial analysis. On the bald face of it, you would appear to be correct; then I'm sure someone would be along to trot out a study that childless people end up costing more medically due to stress, depression, whatever. It gets into smoke and mirrors. And of course, the logical hyper-extension of that would be the extinction of the race within a generation... [Biased]

But yeah, the church kinda got themselves into it when they started taking Federal money. It's like I told my kids: If I don't approve the activity, you don't get the money. You want to do X, go find the money yourself. (Quick. While you still know everything...)

ETA: Cp'd with Josephine. Yes I do, my wife has had just these kinds of problems in spades. But I don't think we're talking just hormone therapy here - we're talking IUD's etc.

[ 29. May 2012, 18:28: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
OP'd by cliffdweller:

quote:
This looks very much to me like a few idealogues trying to exert their clout to pursue a political agenda. And in doing so, they are seeking to limit the individual freedom of female employees at these organizations, all the while framing it as a "religious freedom" issue with an affected victimization.
Not that I'm overly irate or anything, but this kind of talk strikes me as wrong. Whether they provide zero, 50%, 80% or 100% of the cost of the birth control, it has zero and less than zero to do with her freedom.

I am free to attempt to swim for half an hour at depths of 100 ft. under the ocean. But if I want to do it, I'd better buy some scuba gear. Still, I'm not going to haul off to my insurer or my government to demand that they pay for it. IMHO recreational sex (as much as I enjoy it and believe it is blessed by God) is exactly the same.

There, I got that of my chest.

As was attempted to be explained at the congressional hearing infamously devoid of female voices, birth control pills are not only prescribed for "recreational sex" (including marital recreational sex, fwiw). They are also prescribed for a number of significant medical conditions.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

FWIW! FWIW! It's worth a LOT, I can tell you! [Big Grin]

Ok, so no women were present at the hearings, and that's wrong.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

To set some context, in one of the original cases the Supreme Court found that providing an employee prescription drug benefit that did not cover oral contraceptive drugs / hormone therapy was an instance of sexual discrimination against women.

So the case boils down to whether the government should allow tax write-offs for health care plan expenses when those plans violate the laws on workplace discrimination.

In this context it really doesn't matter whether the discrimination is based on age, sex, race, national origin, etc. - that is just a detail.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

So what are you saying? The horse has been out of the barn so long that the thing is falling down, and now somebody's trying to get the door shut? [Biased]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
So what are you saying? The horse has been out of the barn so long that the thing is falling down, and now somebody's trying to get the door shut?

I'd guess it would be something along the lines of the way in which workplace discrimination, contra your position, actually impinges on people's freedom.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Evidently a sizable number of bishops aren't on board: Commonweal: All Aboard? Not every bishop agrees with the USCCB's religious-freedom strategy

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
So what are you saying? The horse has been out of the barn so long that the thing is falling down, and now somebody's trying to get the door shut?
I'd guess it would be something along the lines of the way in which workplace discrimination, contra your position, actually impinges on people's freedom.

So this means that, even if the Catholics decide to reject the tax break so they can then non-insure contraceptives, it's still illegal?

(BTW, my reference was to the Catholic bishops bringing suit when apparently the matter had already been decided.)

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

Well, of course, there are always exceptions...

The negotiations with President Obama led to a compromise where the woman could still receive treatment but the religious institution wouldn't have to pay for it. (Or at least that is my understanding, though I haven't looked up the details.) But that wasn't good enough for those who want to use it as a political issue to help spur conservative turnout in an election year.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
Well, of course, there are always exceptions...

The negotiations with President Obama led to a compromise where the woman could still receive treatment but the religious institution wouldn't have to pay for it. (Or at least that is my understanding, though I haven't looked up the details.) But that wasn't good enough for those who want to use it as a political issue to help spur conservative turnout in an election year.

That was point #2 in my previous post. Having a third party (the insurance provider) offer the service cost-free to the employees was seen as infringing an employers freedom to use his religous beliefs to restrict his employees' medical services.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
So what are you saying? The horse has been out of the barn so long that the thing is falling down, and now somebody's trying to get the door shut?
I'd guess it would be something along the lines of the way in which workplace discrimination, contra your position, actually impinges on people's freedom.
So this means that, even if the Catholics decide to reject the tax break so they can then non-insure contraceptives, it's still illegal?

(BTW, my reference was to the Catholic bishops bringing suit when apparently the matter had already been decided.)

Context: No one is requiring Catholic organizations to "issue" contraceptives. No one is suggesting that Catholic organizations can't require their employees to abide by Catholic teachings on contraception.

The law simply requires that the health insurance plans-- often a separate entity-- include contraception coverage. And again, that's not new-- it's been a required part of health insurance plans, including those of Catholic organizations, for decades. The ONLY new thing is that now that coverage has to be w/o a co-pay.

So again, if there is an ethical problem with faith-based organizations being required to indirectly subsidize contraception through their health insurance plans, it is NOT a new problem-- we've simply upped it from a 80% subsidy to 100%. Yet never any controversy or complaint until now. Which I think clearly demonstrates that the real issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with religious scruples.

[ 29. May 2012, 21:25: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Yes, you or someone else was saying that upthread, and I agree that this appears to be throwing dust in the air. That was never my point in commenting in the first place.

But now I find myself wondering what other prescriptions are mandated to be without copay in this new system. Why contraception? Even allowing other uses of the pill, there are also other forms of contraception, such as IUD's, etc, and as I understand this, it is contraception that is mandated to be without co-pay, irrespective of other uses.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
But now I find myself wondering what other prescriptions are mandated to be without copay in this new system.

Items to be covered without out-of-pocket cost for covered employees under the provision in question are:

Well-woman visits
Screening for gestational diabetes
HPV testing
STD counseling
HIV testing and counseling
Breastfeeding support and supplies
Contraception
Screening and counseling for domestic violence

There are other laws mandating other things be covered without out-of-pocket cost, but the above list contains the things the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops find intolerable. You'll notice that most of them are premised on the idea that "health care" includes women.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Don't forget, Viagra!

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Well, that's it, though, I don't really care what the bishops find intolerable, but ALL of the things that are mandated to be covered 100%. Curious more than anything. Further, considering the birth of Christ, how could they possibly object to the breastfeeding thing? I'm sure Mary wasn't using bottles & Similac! Or does is get objected to by virtue of it being stuck in the same provision, but wouldn't be otherwise.

And Viagra? Certainly not mandated to be 100% covered, surely.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

My understanding is that the shift re: co-pays has to do with preventative health care (see list upthread for examples). The idea being that the US will save considerably on health care expenses if we invest more in preventative care-- something that seems to be born out in the experience of virtually every other developed nation. Paying fully for birth control, diabetes testing, prenatal care, etc. pays off in the long term if it encourages patients to take advantage of these services, thus avoiding more expensive health problems later down the road.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Well, that's it, though, I don't really care what the bishops find intolerable, but ALL of the things that are mandated to be covered 100%. Curious more than anything. Further, considering the birth of Christ, how could they possibly object to the breastfeeding thing? I'm sure Mary wasn't using bottles & Similac! ...

The that's because their standard for women is the virgin birth. Virgin mothers don't get STDs or use birth control, thus don't need insurance coverage. Only bad women use birth control or get HPV, and they should be forced to pay.

As for things like breastfeeding help, it really does boil down to if men don't need it, it won't be covered. (And if they do, it will be, thus Viagra was promptly covered.) It has to be slowly explained that it isn't sex discrimination to test only pregnant women for gestational diabetes, not pregant men. In other words, it's not as simple as treating people all the same, since in some cases, equal treatment imposes a disadvantage on a particular group and is therefore discriminatory. OliviaG

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Well, of course that makes sense. So (if I assume you mean Croesus's list), I see preventive care for women, what about me? Do I get a free "well man" visit? 'Cause let me tell you, since he's started checking my prostate, I cold use some extra incentive to avail myself of his service. And just as women hate to go for a Pap smear, I hate dropping my drawers as well.

Other than that, of the 8 things on that list, only 3 are exclusive to women, and again, I am certain the RC Church would not object to any of those, or the domestic violence screening either (which is preponderantly, though not exclusively, for women). So I wonder at Croesus' rhetoric, as well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, and Breastfeeding support, as well as screening for domestic violence, are all very pro-life, good things.

That's why I asked about all the things that are required to be 100% covered.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Tried to edit, but missed:

ETA: My goodness, OlivaiG, another cross-post! Lemme see here, guys don't get STD's? I have two sons waiting out the HPV virus right now. Granted the effects are different on guys, but it still got'em, and they don't want to take a chance on spreading it. So the STD deal yeah, they figure (and I am not their spokesman), you play, you pay. I just had a son pay $250 for STD screening. Serves him right, but it's also painfully obvious that many won't pay or treat it, and I have to wonder how much making it completely free will change that.

And really, Viagra is 100% covered? If so, that is a travesty of the first rank. As for your slow explanation, I think I answered that already.

Over against the "make it free so they will use it" argument is the "If you're not invested in it, you won't care as much or try as hard to overcome the problem." There is a balancing act. Hence I don't mind paying for my cholesterol medication, it's added incentive to stop being a glutton. Now that's not the case for all the things on that list, such as gestational diabetes - but for the STD/HIV stuff, I wonder, and I'm not saying either approach is better. Perhaps with the screening free, the percent participation will go from 25% to 95%. Or it may go from 80% to 82%. Then, past the screening, is the treatment and some attempt to stop the spread... In that regard, most know how it's spread, it's the personal discipline that is lacking.

My 2 cents.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

Preventive Services Covered Under the Affordable Care Act

OliviaG

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Thanks! Wow. Some odd ones: Syphillis & Gonorrhea screening is not required to be covered 100%. STI is not required to be covered at 100% (presumably for men only). Yippee! I can get my $3.00 bottle of 81 mg aspirin that lasts me over 17 months! Maybe even for free, if not 80% covered! [Razz]

Anyway, thanks. That's what I was looking for. In retrosect, I'm surprised you didn't do a "Let me Google that for you" link!

[ 30. May 2012, 18:36: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Just in case anyone's unclear on the way "religious conscience" will be used if the plaintiffs in this case prevail, we have this story:

quote:
A gay HIV-positive man says in court that a hospital denied him treatment and visitors, as the doctor remarked, "This is what he gets for going against God's will."

Joao Simoes sued Trinitas Regional Medical Center in Union County Superior Court. He says that the hospital admitted him in August 2011, but that "requests for his lifesaving medication were not honored," and his sister was denied visitation rights.

Now this is from a complaint filed [PDF] with the Superior Court of New Jersey, so the usual caveats about these being as-yet unproven allegations apply, but if we assume the facts are correct why wouldn't a hospital be allowed to do this if "religious liberty" is held to be the paramount value?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

In keeping with the Citizen's United decision, it would seem that the "religious freedom" of institutions holds priority over the religious freedom of individuals (employees or, in the above case, patients).

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0