War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

To the best of my knowledge, no public funds are used to pay for abortions. (Legal folks, am I missing something?)

The Hyde Amendment, first passed in 1976, bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions; it primarily affects people covered by Medicaid. Since then, similar provisions have extended the ban on federal funding of abortions. Federal government employees who wish to have abortions pay for them "out-of-pocket". Abortions are not covered healthcare services for U.S. military personnel and their families, Peace Corps volunteers, Indian Health Service clients, or federal prisoners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

Planned Parenthood receives about a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $360 million in 2009).^[43] By law, federal funding cannot be allocated for abortions,^[44] but some opponents of abortion have argued that allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services "frees up" funds to be re-allocated for abortion.<sup>[45][46]\

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood</sup>

[LazyBoy]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I guess we'll all end up working for Christian Scientists. In fact, for a public company which is required to maximize shareholder value, a religion that denies medical care will be required. (-- at the top. The religion of the workers being unimportant.)

[Ellen Z]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Two things strike me as especially interesting about this conversation, up to this point:
_____ people have strongly held personal views that aren’t likely to change
_____ all of us can imagine a better healthcare system, if we were starting from scratch

About the first point:

Many of us have strongly held personal views, that abortion is equivalent to murder, or that any form of contraception is sinful. On the other hand, many of us rely on contraception in our personal lives and take contraception for granted.

National statistics show that the country is split right down the middle on these and many similar issues.

So the interesting question in terms of designing the healthcare system is, how do you design a healthcare system that will work for most people, that accommodates BOTH of these viewpoints.

About the second point:

We have a healthcare system that has evolved over time, and I think everyone agrees it is not functioning too well right now. The big change between the healthcare debate in 1993 and the debate today, is that in 1993 the major players wanted to be left alone, and now the major players (I mean physicians, hospitals, insurers) all agree that the current system is not working.

We are not starting from scratch. We have a crazy quilt system that includes primary care physicians, specialists, nurses, patients, employers, hospitals, nursing homes, large health systems, unions, insurers, state legislatures, medical equipment manufacturers, drug companies ... each of those groups with its own interests, its own vocabulary, its own payment history (and we could break it down into many smaller subsets.)

One of the problems in limiting healthcare costs is that every healthcare cost is also someone’s source of income. Of course people fight like the dickens at proposed changes that could reduce their income below its current level.

We don’t get to wave a magic wand and start over again from scratch. The interesting question is, what is the best thing we could or should do, building upon, or altering, the systems and processes that are already in place?

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

Two things strike me as especially interesting about this conversation, up to this point:
_____ people have strongly held personal views that aren’t likely to change
_____ all of us can imagine a better healthcare system, if we were starting from scratch

About the first point:

Many of us have strongly held personal views, that abortion is equivalent to murder, or that any form of contraception is sinful. On the other hand, many of us rely on contraception in our personal lives and take contraception for granted.

National statistics show that the country is split right down the middle on these and many similar issues.

So the interesting question in terms of designing the healthcare system is, how do you design a healthcare system that will work for most people, that accommodates BOTH of these viewpoints.

About the second point:

We have a healthcare system that has evolved over time, and I think everyone agrees it is not functioning too well right now. The big change between the healthcare debate in 1993 and the debate today, is that in 1993 the major players wanted to be left alone, and now the major players (I mean physicians, hospitals, insurers) all agree that the current system is not working.

We are not starting from scratch. We have a crazy quilt system that includes primary care physicians, specialists, nurses, patients, employers, hospitals, nursing homes, large health systems, unions, insurers, state legislatures, medical equipment manufacturers, drug companies ... each of those groups with its own interests, its own vocabulary, its own payment history (and we could break it down into many smaller subsets.)

One of the problems in limiting healthcare costs is that every healthcare cost is also someone’s source of income. Of course people fight like the dickens at proposed changes that could reduce their income below its current level.

We don’t get to wave a magic wand and start over again from scratch. The interesting question is, what is the best thing we could or should do, building upon, or altering, the systems and processes that are already in place?

Excellent summary! Perphaps if/when Ka-Poom happens we will have a chance to start over, but probably not.

[Kadriana]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I guess we'll all end up working for Christian Scientists. In fact, for a public company which is required to maximize shareholder value, a religion that denies medical care will be required. (-- at the top. The religion of the workers being unimportant.)

There are several religions against surgery, aren't there? I find this whole debate confusing because I though the Catholic church was fine with bc pills being used for medical reasons. It seems weird that they would want to withhold needed medication for fear their followers will use it just to prevent pregnancy. Plenty of people use pain pills for recreational uses but I don't hear talk about banning Oxycontin. I don't think bc pills need to be free but why aren't they treating like any other medication that has several uses?

[photon555]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

"Hard cases make bad law." This legal maxim should be remembered in this difficult situation. All Catholic institutions together are a very small part of the universe of all employers. Any decision imposed by state fiat is bound to lead to bad precedent and unintended consequences. The state deciding a matter of conscience by writing a law, or judicial decision is bad enough, but to do it by executive fiat is outrageous, bordering on the insane. Often in difficult situations the best course of action is to take no action at all, especially when the only action being proposed is for state intervention. Let the parties involved work out their differences of conscience unmolested. Once the state interjects itself into matters of conscience with respect to religion there is a slippery slope leading inevitably to the state determining which religions meet the state's requirements to be considered proper and well behaved and receive the state's approval. Government is a very powerful amoral force. This is its fundamental nature. It knows nothing of any human attribute such as compassion or charity, or even reason. Do not burden it with duties for which it is entirely unsuited. The state, in deciding between two parties contesting a matter of conscience, will promote one view over another, and thus become the arbiter of which doctrine is correct or not correct.

There is a vocal minority which calls for state intervention at every opportunity. Every time there is a conflict of views on matters which properly belong to individuals and private institutions the specter of gross injustice is raised. "We must have a law to control/prevent/ensure this or that outcome." Their childlike faith in the all knowing, all caring state undoubtedly reveals some intriguing insights into a troubled upbringing, but the details are un-important compared to the massive harm they do to society. George Washington stated that government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. This view of the state as being unsuited for deciding certain issues can be extended to many other venues of society. Another important area is education. Better to require Dr. Frankenstein's monster to perform brain surgery on your child than to give his/her upbringing into the hands of the (Frankenstein) state. Government, like so many other aspects of life, is definitely a case where less is more.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

You're essentially arguing a slippery slope.

Well would or wouldn't the case represent new precedent that would effect everyone based on the SCOTUS decision?

Employers are not in any way required to match all of their employee's desires.

Absolutely, but I never said they should either. Remeber the argument here is that employers don't have to compensate for things that they have religious/ethical/whatever objections too, cost isn't the problem here.

A Catholic corporation or organization can no more sanction contraception by paying for it any more than a libertarian organization can advocate for socialized anything.

This is like comparing apples to rocks. The Catholics don't have to sanction or advocate for contraceptives, they'd just have to allow their health care plans to compensate for them. If you, or the Church, want to argue that is the same thing as advocating for contraceptives then I'd say you're conflating two very different things.

[photon555]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

To make my personal position clear I am not a Catholic, although I am a Christian; I am an evangelical Baptist if it matters to you. I am not arguing either for or against Catholic institutions providing contraception coveage as part of their healthcare package. I do not have a personal interest in the matter. I am not against contraception per se. I am arguing that the decision is entirely up to those institutions and their stakeholders. The state should have no part in any decision regarding a matter of conscience, and this is definitely a matter of conscience. The state has interjected itself into the dialogue and created a controversy. This in itself is wrong and has made any solution more difficult, but for the state to dictate a decision would be dangerous in the extreme. Even if you support the decision this regime has made, you must realize that this action creates a pernicious precedent; a different regime could decide against your preferences just as easily as for them.

[photon555]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

This is like comparing apples to rocks. The Catholics don't have to sanction or advocate for contraceptives, they'd just have to allow their health care plans to compensate for them. If you, or the Church, want to argue that is the same thing as advocating for contraceptives then I'd say you're conflating two very different things.

You may say anything you like, but it is the Catholics themselves who get to decide if this is a matter of conscience or not. Not only are they saying that it is, they have a record which concurs with their contention that it is a matter of conscience to them. For the Obama regime to impose it's politically expedient will on Catholic institutions in this matter is a clear violation of their rights.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

The interesting question is, what is the best thing we could or should do, building upon, or altering, the systems and processes that are already in place?

The best thing no holds barred is a single payer UHS. Considering we're talking about people's health its not unreasonable to expect and want the best solution. However a FAR more realistic one would be to have a early buy in option for Medicare for everyone, with free Medicare for those in the poverty range, and for those who don't want Medicare regular private insurance would be available.

National statistics show that the country is split right down the middle on these and many similar issues.

That depends actually depending on how the questions are asked. There is real reason to believe that the split isn't even however, and that people would favor a UHS or at the very least Medicare for all.



And something a little more relevant to the topic at hand.

[shiny!]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

The 1996 HIPAA law requires that you can convert to individual coverage at the end of COBRA. What you can convert to varies by state.

But using Ellenz's example, how would an unemployed person with cancer be able to afford individual coverage after COBRA expires? I'm on COBRA since my husband was killed last year and I can barely afford it. Individual coverage costs even more.

[mesyn191]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

You may say anything you like, but it is the Catholics themselves who get to decide if this is a matter of conscience or not.

As was said before earlier in the thread by someone else, "My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. Your right to suppress the use of birth control ends at my wife's estrogen prescription."

Now why do you believe that the employer's "matters of conscience" should matter more here than the employees? If the government doesn't get enforce public opinion on such issues who should?

[shiny!]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

"Hard cases make bad law." This legal maxim should be remembered in this difficult situation. All Catholic institutions together are a very small part of the universe of all employers. Any decision imposed by state fiat is bound to lead to bad precedent and unintended consequences. The state deciding a matter of conscience by writing a law, or judicial decision is bad enough, but to do it by executive fiat is outrageous, bordering on the insane. Often in difficult situations the best course of action is to take no action at all, especially when the only action being proposed is for state intervention. Let the parties involved work out their differences of conscience unmolested. Once the state interjects itself into matters of conscience with respect to religion there is a slippery slope leading inevitably to the state determining which religions meet the state's requirements to be considered proper and well behaved and receive the state's approval. Government is a very powerful amoral force. This is its fundamental nature. It knows nothing of any human attribute such as compassion or charity, or even reason. Do not burden it with duties for which it is entirely unsuited. The state, in deciding between two parties contesting a matter of conscience, will promote one view over another, and thus become the arbiter of which doctrine is correct or not correct.

There is a vocal minority which calls for state intervention at every opportunity. Every time there is a conflict of views on matters which properly belong to individuals and private institutions the specter of gross injustice is raised. "We must have a law to control/prevent/ensure this or that outcome." Their childlike faith in the all knowing, all caring state undoubtedly reveals some intriguing insights into a troubled upbringing, but the details are un-important compared to the massive harm they do to society. George Washington stated that government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. This view of the state as being unsuited for deciding certain issues can be extended to many other venues of society. Another important area is education. Better to require Dr. Frankenstein's monster to perform brain surgery on your child than to give his/her upbringing into the hands of the (Frankenstein) state. Government, like so many other aspects of life, is definitely a case where less is more.

Eloquently stated. This is beautiful.

[jiimbergin]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

To make my personal position clear I am not a Catholic, although I am a Christian; I am an evangelical Baptist if it matters to you. I am not arguing either for or against Catholic institutions providing contraception coveage as part of their healthcare package. I do not have a personal interest in the matter. I am not against contraception per se. I am arguing that the decision in entirely up to those institutions and their stakeholders. The state should have no part in any decision regarding a matter of conscience, and this is definitely a matter of conscience. The state has interjected itself into the dialogue and created a controversy. This in itself is wrong and has made any solution more difficult, but for the state to dictate a decision would be dangerous in the extreme. Even if you support the decision this regime has made, you must realize that this action creates a pernicious precedent; a different regime could decide against your preferences just as easily as for them.

+1

[photon555]

Re: War on Women: A Bridge Too Far?

I am opposed to anything free to anybody except those who are absolutely unable to provide for themselves due to real disabilities. If someone "needs" food stamps, or medical treatment, or anything else that is supposedly essential to life, then they should be required to work for them. If they are unable to find their own job, then the local communtiy should arrange suitable work. Something like community service, but doing real work that makes a difference. There is nothing wrong with having to work 80 hours or more a week to make ends meet. Many people work this much and more to provide for their families, or to establish a business. Nobody is entitled to a free ride, or even a 40 hour per week work limit. Going without eating for a day or two might motivate some people to find their own job, and is usually good for health. Historically, fasting one day a week has been seen as good for the soul and the body. Perhaps we all should try it at least once so we can speak from experience. My own slight experience with fasting has been entirely accidental or due to illness, I must admit. Now if someone is so unfortunate or unwilling to work that they reach the age of retirement without paying off their debt to society, then their hours can be reduced, but they should still be required to work at least some amount until they are actually no longer able. If you think that is harsh, then realize that it is not as harsh as the economic collapse of society to which our entitlement crazed social welfare paradigm is leading. For those who are unable to order their own lives society could offer the freely chosen option of being under supervision in a commune like arrangement. Just remember there is nothing free except God's love, and that actually cost Him His only Son. It's only free to humanity, to those of us who accept His offer of redemption.

Let the reprisals begin!