Obama's Catholic hospital decision

[Sbane]

Calm down Angus, it's just a little birth control. And I am sure the insurance company will get compensated for it. It's not as if birth control costs that much when you look at the big picture of our health care system. They would only need to increase premiums just a tad and they could cover it. And the catholic church wouldn't have to feel icky. Though it remains to be seen how exactly they do it.

Am I being too ideological? 

The talking heads spin it as a "religious freedom issue" versus a "health care issue."  Frankly, it's not either of those aspects that bother me, but the fact that a US President can usurp such great authority.  I'm just not seeing that in the job description as detailed in the US Constitution. 

And, while we're at it, no I don't like taking off my shoes at airports, thankyouverymuch.

Yes, I hate taking off my shoes too. I watched Obama's little speech, and learned nothing, except that America loves religion or something. The details of how this will all work out will need to be found out later.

[angus]

At risk of sounding like an idiot, is this new "accomodation" to make the insurance companies provide the birth control actually any different? Wouldn't they just pass the cost on back to the Catholic hospitals?

Which ultimately gets passed on to the patients through their premium payments.  just like the cost for the privilege of being prodded and scanned at airports is passed on to the passengers, in the form of a fee when they buy the airline ticket.  Any time the government says "buy this" then the people are burdened, either directly or indirectly, with unnecessary costs.  There's no way around it:  goods and services aren't free.

The fact that he makes an exception for religious institutions is the worst possible outcome.  First, it treats groups of people like political footballs.  Secondly, the perceived "victory" over the injustice of having the government tell the private sector how to operate gives folks a false sense of security.  Better to let them try to make laws and then challenge them in court, or just vote the bums out of office and let a new congress deal with it.  Thirdly, it becomes the new normal.  A government that chisels away the liberties of the people, one by one, becomes authoritarian is a stealthy manner.  All my life it has been "normal" that things like prostitution and marijuana are illegal.  I just haven't known any other way.  But double jeopardy and warrantless wiretapping and medical insurance mandates seem illegal.  In a generation they won't.  My son will not know a time when the government wasn't expected to control every aspect of his life, from cradle to grave.  And so it goes. 

The fact that any bimbos he might one day be banging would be on the pill doesn't bother me.  In fact, I would consider that a good thing.  No, the contraceptive itself is not the enemy.  The enemy is the law that requires it.  It's a small thing, this policy, and it has no direct on me, but it is another nail in the casket of our basic right to operate.  A people who will submit, without a fight, to this sort of abuse from its government does not deserve freedom, and so it shall not have any. 


Ah, I've worked myself into a hissy fit.  I should probably go do something else for a while.

[Beet]

That's a slippery slope argument. I think it's worth talking about long term trends in personal and economic freedoms (where there have been historical movements in both directions), but the "My son will not know a time when the government wasn't expected to control every aspect of his life, from cradle to grave" is clearly hyperbolic and inaccurate. A government that mandates the provision of health care insurance is hardly an authoritarian or Orwellian government, unless you think that the Canadian government is Orwellian, and such.

[Link]

pretty much.  I think we're on the same frequency, beet.  As I said, his is an extreme example.  The population of my household is three, and between us we have 89 years of living, and none of us has ever required a quadruple bypass.  What we have required is azithromycin, casts for broken arms, cough medicine, X-rays, vaccinations, general obstetrical services, general pediatric services, circumcisions, and the like, much of which could be had for the cost of a chicken or a pound of butter at one time.

That is a lie.  Azythromycin was licensed by Pfzir in 1986.  I guarantee you it cost more than a chicken or pound of butter.  Where do you guys get this stuff from?

[angus]

That's a slippery slope argument. I think it's worth talking about long term trends in personal and economic freedoms (where there have been historical movements in both directions), but the "My son will not know a time when the government wasn't expected to control every aspect of his life, from cradle to grave" is clearly hyperbolic and inaccurate. A government that mandates the provision of health care insurance is hardly an authoritarian or Orwellian government, unless you think that the Canadian government is Orwellian, and such.

Orwellian doesn't apply to canada.  Nothing applies to canada.  They call themselves a real country, yet they put another country's monarch on their money.  Leave canada out of it.

Yes, it's a slippery slope argument, and the long-term slip on the slope is scary, don't you think?  Say I've a business.  Say I want to offer my employees some fringe benefits, like medical and dental insurance.  Now, maybe the insurance I'm offering covers nose jobs, maybe it doesn't.  Maybe it covers pre-existing HIV, maybe it doesn't.  Maybe it covers birth control, maybe it doesn't.  But whatever I"m offering, that's what I'm offering.  Maybe some folks see it as a good fringe benefit.  If you don't think the wages I pay are sufficient, or if I don't give enough paid holidays, or if you think my insurance program doesn't meets your family's needs, then that's fine.  Don't work here.  No hard feelings.  You move on and I give you a good reference.  But there is no reasonable case to be made that the government should be meddling here, is there?  This is a private contract between my business and my employees, or between my business and the insurance firm with whom I do business.  Full disclosure:  I don't believe that the government should be in the business of medical insurance anyway, and I'm still hoping for a repeal or court review of the medical reform bill of 2010, but if we accept that the government should be in this business, then it gets easier to accept that they can be in other personal affairs.  This is the slippery slope.  

Probably there's a justification for the thinking that occasioned such bad policy.  Probably it was the one-two punch:  The 2001 terrorists attacks, followed a few years later by the Credit Crunch, that made us feel weak and vulnerable.  In the fall of 2001 people suddenly felt scared, and were willing to exchange liberty for security.  Then, in the fall of 2008 they were once again feeling vulnerable and willing to exchange liberty for security.  Politicians have exploited both events, shamlessly, to make policies that are at once popular and help them get re-elected, but at the same time have a long-term detrimental effect on our the liberties of our people.  The Republicans are just as shallow and just as shameless as the Democrats in this regard, although they have different pet issues, they have in common that they exploit the fears of the people in order to hold on to their powerful, lucrative positions.  So now we have a (false) sense of security, whether it manifests as "national" security or "economic" security, it makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside.  And these false securities come at a high price:  we pay for them at a cost to our individual liberties and the freedom to do business unencumbered by excesses and waste.  But we become de-sensitized to them, and they make it easier for future congresses--and future presidents, what with the administration creep that have given presidents of late almost as much authority--to enact further "security" measures.

[King]

tl;dr.

All the Catholic friends and family here are more disgusted with the church's opposition than the Obama decision.   The compromise I read a few posts above leads me to leave this will have a 0% effect on the election.

[Torie]

Apparently the compromise is that insurers rather than employers would pay for birth control if an employer objects to paying for birth control on religious grounds.

The insurers need to cover it without getting any additional premium payment for the additional coverage?  I guess it should not surprise me that in some quarters, private companies are viewed as a piggy bank to finance certain government objectives, but that only works after you emesh them the tar baby of governmental dependency, where they can be bullied and already have sunk costs, so they can't just stop providing the good or service now saddled with costs rendering the good or service unprofitable.

[King]

Apparently the compromise is that insurers rather than employers would pay for birth control if an employer objects to paying for birth control on religious grounds.

The insurers need to cover it without getting any additional premium payment for the additional coverage?  I guess it should not surprise me that in some quarters, private companies are viewed as a piggy bank to finance certain government objectives, but that only works after you emesh them the tar baby of governmental dependency, where they can be bullied and already have sunk costs, so they can't just stop providing the good or service now saddled with costs rendering the good or service unprofitable.

I seriously doubt the sales of contraception pills at staunch Catholic institutions will ever be high enough to make a serious dent into the balance sheets of any insurer. 

Wedge issue is wedge.

[Torie]

Apparently the compromise is that insurers rather than employers would pay for birth control if an employer objects to paying for birth control on religious grounds.

The insurers need to cover it without getting any additional premium payment for the additional coverage?  I guess it should not surprise me that in some quarters, private companies are viewed as a piggy bank to finance certain government objectives, but that only works after you emesh them the tar baby of governmental dependency, where they can be bullied and already have sunk costs, so they can't just stop providing the good or service now saddled with costs rendering the good or service unprofitable.

I seriously doubt the sales of contraception pills at staunch Catholic institutions will ever be high enough to make a serious dent into the balance sheets of any insurer.  

Wedge issue is wedge.

No doubt, but a cut here, a cut there, and soon you have real blood on the floor. It betrays a state of mind. It sort of reminds me of Jesse Jackson. When he wanted money, he just headed over to corporate suites to shake them down. Don't tax you, don't tax me, no fees, make it free, shake down the guy who's at my knee.

[anvi]

I doubt they would have announced this deal without clearing it with the insurers first.  In addition to the low costs of providing this additional coverage, I'd tend to think the insurers would prefer to flip for the few pills that the few woman from these institutions might ask for than pay for maternity costs and all that comes after.

[angus]

I'd tend to think the insurers would prefer to flip for the few pills that the few woman from these institutions might ask for than pay for maternity costs and all that comes after.

I'd rather drink my cellmate's love juice than have it forced into my rectal canal.

But, all things considered, I'd rather stay out of the cell anyway.  And to live in a land in which I had a reasonable chance of staying out, so long as I mind my own business and let others mind theirs.

Dude, where's my country?

[Link]

I'd tend to think the insurers would prefer to flip for the few pills that the few woman from these institutions might ask for than pay for maternity costs and all that comes after.

I'd rather drink my cellmate's love juice than have it forced into my rectal canal.

very strange.

[angus]

Okay, let's try another tac.  I'm not trying to put words into your mouth--or anything else into your mouth, for that matter--but it strikes me as astonishing that it doesn't bother you, or anyone, that we have come to a point of saying, "well, the autocracy will tell us what it will tell us, and we have no other recourse than to make the best of it."  This is outrageous!  A private company is expected to eat the cost, all because of executive fiat.  And this isn't even a congressionally-mandated clusterfuck.  That, at least, is legitimate.  This is presidential fiat on a matter that isn't even remotely related to the executive branch description, as envisioned by The Founders. 

Deeply disturbing. 

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The Fascolics will have some stake to complain when they stop covering up the rape of children, which is probably worse than condoms.

[Link]

Okay, let's try another tac.  I'm not trying to put words into your mouth--or anything else into your mouth, for that matter--but it strikes me as astonishing that it doesn't bother you, or anyone, that we have come to a point of saying, "well, the autocracy will tell us what it will tell us, and we have no other recourse than to make the best of it."  This is outrageous!  A private company is expected to eat the cost, all because of executive fiat.  And this isn't even a congressionally-mandated clusterfuck.  That, at least, is legitimate.  This is presidential fiat on a matter that isn't even remotely related to the executive branch description, as envisioned by The Founders.  

Deeply disturbing.  

The insurance companies are not going to "eat the costs."  They will raise the rates on other customers.  98% of women use contraception.  The majority of Catholic universities and hospitals cover it anyway already.  This is much to do about nothing.  The Obama administration created millions of new customers for the insurance companies with his health care law.  Trust me, they are doing fine.

Any other concerns?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The insurers need to cover it without getting any additional premium payment for the additional coverage?

Don't know the actuarial tables on this, but it does seem likely that increased contraceptive use would decrease maternity care which can be quite expensive.  Whether the net effect on the insurers is positive or negative is something I don't have the data to judge, but they may well have it.

[Torie]

I doubt they would have announced this deal without clearing it with the insurers first.  In addition to the low costs of providing this additional coverage, I'd tend to think the insurers would prefer to flip for the few pills that the few woman from these institutions might ask for than pay for maternity costs and all that comes after.

Having listened to some buzz since then, I don't think Obama had any deal at all, with anyone, be it insurers or otherwise, and is just winging it.  In other words, he repealed the edict, and then did an Houdini act.

Obama's idea that insurers should "do it" out of eleemosynary impulses or self interest (fewer pregnancies = more profits), as if at least as to the latter, the insurers are incapable of managing the task of maximizing their profits without government help, advice and mandates, is just ludicrous on its face.

I get the sense more and more these days, that it as if Obama is talking down to me, and almost deliberately insulting my intelligence, and I don't like it.  I get enough of that from some Pub competitors as it is.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I doubt they would have announced this deal without clearing it with the insurers first.  In addition to the low costs of providing this additional coverage, I'd tend to think the insurers would prefer to flip for the few pills that the few woman from these institutions might ask for than pay for maternity costs and all that comes after.

Having listened to some buzz since then, I don't think Obama had any deal at all, with anyone, be it insurers or otherwise, and is just winging it.

I tend to believe that this was the plan all along, and though Obama might've hoped to get away with his first course of action, he knew that the culture warriors of the Right would be unable to keep themselves from taking the bait and freaking out over something that the public was against them on. What better way to solidify support among women right now? The Right appears completely ridiculous, alienate women, and Obama walks away with a tidy little compromise at worst.

Not to mention it highlights the most alienating aspects of Rick Santorum.

[anvi]

Not for nothing, but more than a decade ago, the EEOC ruled that companies which offered health care plans to more than fifteen employees that provided prescription drugs but did not cover birth control medication stood in violation of title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  That ruling has been upheld by federal courts, in Erickson v. Bartell (2001) and several other cases.  All the initial Obama Administration decision did was to extend the same principle to companies with less than fifteen employees.  You can discriminate on religious grounds, but not on the basis of sex, which is what you are doing when it comes to drawing a line at medications related to pregnancy.  And that's been the practice long before PPACA and long before people were trying to kick up wedge bs for the 2012 election year.  Now you guys want to tell me that this is all about the insurance mandate, the sudden and immanent overthrow of the republic, and once again, the forced bankruptcy of insurance companies.  Yeah, ok.  I'm only sorry that the Obama people caved at all.

Oh well, 'tis the season for making mountains, so, by all means, carry on.

[Beet]

Okay, let's try another tac.  I'm not trying to put words into your mouth--or anything else into your mouth, for that matter--but it strikes me as astonishing that it doesn't bother you, or anyone, that we have come to a point of saying, "well, the autocracy will tell us what it will tell us, and we have no other recourse than to make the best of it."  This is outrageous!  A private company is expected to eat the cost, all because of executive fiat.  And this isn't even a congressionally-mandated clusterfuck.  That, at least, is legitimate.  This is presidential fiat on a matter that isn't even remotely related to the executive branch description, as envisioned by The Founders.  

Deeply disturbing.  

That's not 'another tac'. That's the same old hyperbolic crap you've been spewing from the beginning- it's crap. Did you even read my post? This provision is mandated in the bill (section 2713, the preventative care section) by Congress. Not "executive fiat". The executive branch is simply carrying out rulemaking as part of the implementation process that Congress delegated to it. This process is nearly 100 years old-- it's nothing new, nothing nearly new, and about as far from novel as you can possibly get. You could look up "conventional" in the dictionary and find "executive rulemaking" in there.

[Brittain33]

You guys are way overreacting.

First, the cost will still be passed on to all the insurers' customers, so it's not like they're making up the benefit out of thin air.

Second, the cost considering how little this is compared to overall health costs and, more importantly, how widely contraception is already covered is going to be trivial.

Third, slippery slope fallacies need to account for the fact that this was briefly a political sh!tstorm of national relevance. When was the last time this happened? Oh yeah, when Republicans made hay from a recommendation to stop mammograms among women under 50 and started screaming about death panels, forcing Obama to backtrack. I don't think Angus compared that bit of extortion to prison rape, but I could be wrong.

It's politics. It's not pretty. But looking closely, it's not even ugly.

[Brittain33]

BTW, Torie, you're just not going to have a President directing his explanations to the academic top 5%
of America. He gets dinged for being too cerebral already.

[angus]

 They will raise the rates on other customers.  

precisely.

Any other concerns?

with your inability to comprehend the underlying problem?  yes, but I grow weary of trying to explain it.

[angus]

Did you even read my post?

possibly.  I'll go back and re-read it to be sure, and then I'll look up the relevant statute.  The reporting has been fairly sensationalistic, and from what I've learned, President Obama is making the calls.  Such respectable outlets as the Washington Post and PBS are describing it this way.  Now, they're saying that Obama has "retreated."  This is even more problematic.  Apparently a group of bishops has been "appeased."  Their concerns were chiefly religious, I gather, and particular to those occasions in which the world's most political religion finds itself at odds with the world's largest bureaucracy.  The Catholic Church versus the USA is not the angle that concerns me, although it can certainly be reassuring to have the Church as an ally in the struggle against an ever-encroaching federal government.  But the alliance is no more, since the Church seems to have had its concerns addressed.  

Mine may be misguided.  I freely admit, as always, the possibility that I am thoroughly confused about the whole thing, but at the moment I'm convinced that it wasn't all a bad dream.  It seems that the federal government took it upon itself two years ago begin a series of worrisome mandates, and to begin the expensive task of seeing to it that the entire population is covered under medical insurance.  At some point it seems that it became morally and politically fashionable to assume that it is the government's right and responsibility to ensure medical coverage to the masses.  I hold out slim hope that it was just a bad dream.

[angus]

I don't see what's more radical about this than regulations that require all buildings to be constructed with fire exits, all food to be processed in a certain way, certain industries to charge non-monopolistic prices, and the whole gamut of government regulations on industry. You can agree or disagree with the specific regulation, or even agree or disagree with the constitutionality of this type of government regulation as a whole, but I don't think you can single out the requirement of contraceptive coverage by insurance companies as more extreme than these other things. The main difference seems to be that one is relatively new and politically charged, while the rest have been with us since we were little.

Further, the fact of the modern world is that Congress is made up of politicians and inherently limited in number; each Congressmember's career is of limited and uncertain duration. Congress cannot oversee all of the laws it enacts. So it delegates much of it to the executive branch. Again, this is nothing new. The executive branch was designed to execute. Part of the execution, is the creation of more specific rules designed to execute the more general or broad intent of Congress, in a process overseen by the courts and by Congress itself. What Obama is doing here is "making" one of those rules. But the Federal Register is thousands of pages long. This is not some novel post-9/11 invention. The President is not 'usurping' any authority, he is implementing a bill passed by Congress, which Congress delegated to him the authority to implement.

Ah, there it is.  But you have edited your post, how can I be sure I ever read it at all.  Anyway, going with what's there now, I'd say that it is very much like requiring fire exist, superficially.  After all, the fire exits are mandated for public safety, and in response to past disasters.  I think mandating certain medical provision--(soldiers must get certain vaccinations before being sent into foreign deserts and jungles--are both preventative and reactionary, like the fire escapes. 

However, unlike the cost of providing medical services, fire escapes are relatively inexpensive, one-time affairs.  As a practical matter, it's very different, and fire escapes don't have to meet United States Pharmacopia standards.  And we're not seeing an eight-fold increase in the cost of fire escapes over the past four decades, are we?  It's very different with drugs and medical services.  Moreover, a building has no rights.  There is no guarantor that a building can say, "By god I'm an American building, and you cannot tell me how many doors I must have."  People are not buildings.  People have liberties.  Or, at least, they used to.