Obama's Catholic hospital decision

[J. J.]

Why do Christians have such a victim complex? Everything to them is persecution.

Ever look at a crucifix?

Seriously, a sizable portion of the population is morally opposed to contraceptives.  I'm not part of it, but I can understand it.

[memphis]

Why do Christians have such a victim complex? Everything to them is persecution.

Ever look at a crucifix?

Seriously, a sizable portion of the population is morally opposed to contraceptives.  I'm not part of it, but I can understand it.

I don't understand it at all. But that's ok. People are allowed to have different views on things. My issue is that rather than trying to persuade others that they hold the correct position, the Right reflexively plays the victim. Over and over again. Every day. I'm sick of it. It's a lazy man's rhetoric.
But whatever. They've jumped the shark on it already. Just about every woman in America uses birth control. If the Republicans want to have a fight over the pill, I think the results will be amusing.

[© tweed]

Has anyone posted the data yet showing that 97-99% of Catholic women use contraception?

Popular as that factoid is, it doesn't make for a great argument against the Church's position as its religious beliefs are not determined by popular vote. Nor should they be.

My point was more that this is been spun as some kind of devestating political blunder, which I don't think it is.

Yeah, it's not a devastating blunder (and certainly not in electoral terms), and the Church isn't being entirely reasonable here, but the Obama decision still strikes me as poor.

the first time I've ever identified you as right-wing on a given issue.

[Beet]

The reason why this is being spun as a devastating political blunder is because the White House, while it started with a better-than-even and even strategically favored position, has been staying off the field. It's like taking up position at Little Roundtop, but then falling back instead of defending. They don't have anyone in the WH who publicly feels strongly about contraceptive availability. As a result, all their statements have been milquetoast and vaccillating. Rhetorically they've put themselves in the worst possible position. It's very strange.

[Lief 🗽]

The reason why this is being spun as a devastating political blunder is because the White House, while it started with a better-than-even and even strategically favored position, has been staying off the field. It's like taking up position at Little Roundtop, but then falling back instead of defending. They don't have anyone in the WH who publicly feels strongly about contraceptive availability. As a result, all their statements have been milquetoast and vaccillating. Rhetorically they've put themselves in the worst possible position. It's very strange.

Yeah, they need telegenic, well-spoken women out there defending this. This is a winning issue for Obama, both based on the policy and the politics. The vast majority of this country agrees that birth control should be legal, accessible, and affordable and should be covered by health insurance plans. Ready access to birth control is what has allowed American women to leave their houses, control their own lives, and start careers. People like Kirsten Gillibrand need to be on the TV defending the decision.

The basic question that needs to be asked here is, should women have the right to decide whether or not to use contraception? Or should that be a decision that their boss makes? Only a handful of religious nuts stuck in the 19th century would choose the latter.

This issue is just ridiculously asinine to me. Should Christians not have to pay taxes for the roads and sidewalks that people drive/walk on to get to abortion clinics?! Should an employer not have to cover his employees with plans that include blood transfusions if he's a Jehovah's witness?! Why do the Catholics need this special exemption for this basic medical coverage?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The problem the Obama people have coming out and defending this isn't the contraception angle, but that this issue highlights the absurdities of our current system of tax-loophole-subsidized employer-provided health insurance, a system that Obamacare makes even more central to out health care system, when we need to make it less central, or even better do away with, altho there are too many vested interests to make that likely to happen.

[Lief 🗽]

The problem the Obama people have coming out and defending this isn't the contraception angle, but that this issue highlights the absurdities of our current system of tax-loophole-subsidized employer-provided health insurance, a system that Obamacare makes even more central to out health care system, when we need to make it less central, or even better do away with, altho there are too many vested interests to make that likely to happen.

Obamacare sets us on the path to doing away with the employer-provided insurance system, through the establishment of regulated health insurance exchanges. Once they are up and running for the self-employed and other groups, they can be opened up to the employees of larger businesses as well.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The problem the Obama people have coming out and defending this isn't the contraception angle, but that this issue highlights the absurdities of our current system of tax-loophole-subsidized employer-provided health insurance, a system that Obamacare makes even more central to out health care system, when we need to make it less central, or even better do away with, altho there are too many vested interests to make that likely to happen.

Obamacare sets us on the path to doing away with the employer-provided insurance system, through the establishment of regulated health insurance exchanges. Once they are up and running for the self-employed and other groups, they can be opened up to the employees of larger businesses as well.

Believe that if you will.  The exchanges look to be set up to fail from the get go.

[Insula Dei]

Has anyone posted the data yet showing that 97-99% of Catholic women use contraception?

Popular as that factoid is, it doesn't make for a great argument against the Church's position as its religious beliefs are not determined by popular vote. Nor should they be.

My point was more that this is been spun as some kind of devestating political blunder, which I don't think it is.

Yeah, it's not a devastating blunder (and certainly not in electoral terms), and the Church isn't being entirely reasonable here, but the Obama decision still strikes me as poor.

the first time I've ever identified you as right-wing on a given issue.

I wouldn't know about that. My position for clarity's sake is just that people shouldn't be dependent on their employer for their health insurance. If you do make people dependent on their employer for it, you shouldn't force an employer to pay for mandatorily covered services which it is by principle opposed to. In cases like this there should be some form of secondary system to cover those costs. That doesn't strike me as a very right-wing position, all in all.  Maybe not a very 'liberal' position, I'll grant you that.

[greenforest32]

The problem the Obama people have coming out and defending this isn't the contraception angle, but that this issue highlights the absurdities of our current system of tax-loophole-subsidized employer-provided health insurance, a system that Obamacare makes even more central to out health care system, when we need to make it less central, or even better do away with, altho there are too many vested interests to make that likely to happen.

Obamacare sets us on the path to doing away with the employer-provided insurance system, through the establishment of regulated health insurance exchanges. Once they are up and running for the self-employed and other groups, they can be opened up to the employees of larger businesses as well.

Believe that if you will.  The exchanges look to be set up to fail from the get go.

Of course the whole private health insurance system is already failing. Prices have nearly doubled in the last 10 years and look on track to double again in the next 10 and less and less people are covered by employer-provided care: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150692/Employer-Based-Health-Insurance-Continues-Trend-Down.aspx



The ideal plan is Medicare for all and the compromise was supposed to be a federal insurance exchange with a federal public option, but both those federal "compromises" were axed in favor of state exchanges. I don't expect them to go very far, but I suppose it's better than the status quo. Our governor here is talking about maybe implementing a state-level public option (buy-in to the state medicaid program) but we'll see where that ends up. The private health insurance market is going to die eventually. I just wish it would happen sooner.

[krazen1211]

Repealed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/story/2012-02-10/obama-birth-control/53036006/1

[angus]

Repealed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/story/2012-02-10/obama-birth-control/53036006/1

The article doesn't really go into specifics.  It just says that Obama is planning to adjust the rule.  Even the video it links just talks about some vague, amorphous compromise. 

[RI]

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.

[Oakvale]

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.

Seems like a fairly harmless solution to this overblown controversy. Meh, I wish they'd held their ground in a way, but I guess birth control will still be covered and there's not much point in fighting the culture wars again.

[angus]

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.

LOL.  That's rather like saying that TSA agents will now be putting on gloves and giving all airline passengers full cavity searches, since the airports object to doing the full cavity searches based on the grounds of common sense, decency, and privacy.  Jesus, Obama is no better than Bush.  If you'd told me 30 years ago that Amerika would one day be a place where I can't board a plane without removing my clothes to let strangers probe me, and where a private company could be ordered by Presidential fiat to provide this or that medical service to its employees, I'd have said that you have been reading too many George Orwell novels.  Or maybe to many Aldous Huxley novels.

 Brave new world, we're living in, boys.  Brave New World.  

[Sbane]

Looks like an excellent way to diffuse the situation. There is no reason to force anyone to do something, no matter how ridiculous the rest of us may think it is, if there is a way around it. There is a press conference in about 15 minutes with Obama explaining it. I will definitely be watching it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/10/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-on-contraceptive-policy/

[Sbane]

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.

 Brave new world, we're living in, boys.  Brave New World.  

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.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

This is a wise move by the President-

[Sbane]

Obama speaking right now.

http://video.foxnews.com/video-live-streaming.html?video_id=1155606219001

[angus]

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.

[TJ in Oregon]

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?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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?

I might be misunderstanding this, but I think the cost would eventually come back to out-of-pocket. If I'm mistaken, somebody please correct me.

[milhouse24]

eh, Obama just wants white catholics to vote for the republican nominee, no big deal. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

eh, Obama just wants white catholics to vote for the republican nominee, no big deal. 

Why would White Catholics be any different from non-white Catholics?

[Beet]

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.