As she says, it’s ludicrous to expect a completely predictable and routine expense to be covered by insurance. It’s all about rousing up the troops in the fake “war on women.”
109 thoughts on “A Fight Over Contraception”
Comments are closed.
As she says, it’s ludicrous to expect a completely predictable and routine expense to be covered by insurance. It’s all about rousing up the troops in the fake “war on women.”
Comments are closed.
As I said before, the case can be made that Christ is not a Republican. Or even a Libertarian. But I think we are seeing strong evidence that Christ is a Roman Catholic.
Catholics are not the only people of faith with “issues” with the mandate, and this is in evidence in the Hobby Lobby suit, but the Catholic bishops had been front and center with respect to supporting health-insurance-for-the-uninsured but having concerns about the mandate, especially since there is a whole system of non-profit Catholic hospitals, offering health insurance to their employees, that answer to the bishops.
Bill Daley and Joe Biden warned the President about this, and the President would not listen, and we are seeing the consequences. I firmly believe that the Web site problems are a warning from the Almighty.
Or maybe evidence that a person so convinced of their righteousness that they cannot listen to their Chief of Staff and Vice President, experienced politicians, life-long and loyal Democrats, and Catholic Democrats. A person who so willing to ignore these men maybe won’t listen to some computer geeks “whining” about making deadlines with the Web site either.
I firmly believe that the Web site problems are a warning from the Almighty.
Okay Paul, time to put the keyboard away for a while.
Is the “Jiminator” as humor-challenged as our beloved “Jim”?
As a rhetorical device, a rhetorical device, people, I suggest that the failure of Healthcare.gov is a sign from the Almighty (and then the LORD doth SMOTE thine servers and consigned thine users to 404 errors and frozen pages), and then I quickly follow with a plausible explanation that a certain political leader thinks he is the Almighty and doesn’t listen to “old political hands.”
After all of the “What would Jesus do?” and “And who would Jesus bomb?” and “What would Judy (Tenuta — a stand-up comedy entertainer whose running punchline is that she is a “goddess”) do?” bumper stickers along with the liberal snark “God is not a Republican”, I thought that a comeback was in order.
This is not meant to be excluding to persons of other faith traditions or even agnotic or atheist Libertarians who value our 1st Amendment liberties. “Yes, I agree with our Liberal friends, there is no evidence that the Lord is a Republican . . . but it is sure beginning to look like he is Roman Catholic!”
George W Bush spoke in his 1st Inaugural Address “After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson: “We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?””
You can tell me to put the keyboard away a second time, but in all sincerity, I agree with our 43’rd President that an unseen agent is riding the whirlwind and directing the storm.
Heck, I’ll sell you insurance for a completely predictable and routine expense.
Of course, it’ll cost you more than if you just paid for it out of pocket… as everything covered by insurance does.. but if you’re happy with that, I’m more than happy to cover you.
It’s those completely unpredictable and unprecedented expenses that require any skill to cover.
“Of course, it’ll cost you more than if you just paid for it out of pocket…”
Maybe not. With ObamaCare you have 100% (minus a politically select few) paying for something only 30% or so use. You must have a LOT of overhead to raise the rate of those 30% over individual cost.
As usual you miss the key value in a intermediary between a business and a consumer.
The Consumer can gain buying power.
it’s why the DoD and VA pay way less for antibiotics, then people do going into
the pharmacy.
It’s sad, that market-conservatives don’t understand the workings of the market.
So what you’re saying is: individuals have no buying power with big business, so they need to buy insurance from a big insurance business so the big insurance business will have buying power from the big pharma business? Where do those individuals get buying power when buying insurance from the big insurance business?
it’s why the DoD and VA pay way less for antibiotics, then people do going into
the pharmacy.
People could buy drugs much more cheaply if a) they didn’t have to pay a doctor to prescribe them and/or b) the US government hadn’t banned import from countries where they’re much cheaper.
It’s sad, big-state conservatives (i.e. the so-called ‘progressives’) don’t understand the workings of the heavily regulated system they’ve created.
If one wonders why there’s a lot of people here who think liberals are statists, look no further. Here, we have a policy of forcing people to do something which is low value, heavily resisted, and which counterproductively threatens the long term viability of a favored, major health care policy. Yet there are still people willing to fight tooth and nail to keep it.
What are they really trying to achieve?
For those who think subsidizing birth control actually has value, keep in mind that people, who can’t be bothered to use cheap birth control, can’t be bothered to use free birth control, especially, if it requires jumping through health insurance hoops or prescriptions in order to get it.
Obamacare mandates coverage for colonoscopies as well. They are as routine and predicable an expense as contraception. But you don’t see a lot of controversy over the colonoscopy mandate. It isn’t all that hard to conclude that the opposition to the contraception mandate isn’t about the proper role of insurance, it’s about whether women’s contraception should be considered legitimate health care.
Yes, you are correct. It is about whether one particular mode of contraception on through drugs that undeniably end a pregnancy should be considered as a bottom-line must-have must-include portion of a health plan receiving government as well as private funding.
And if you are willing to risk sacrificing the entire PPACA law by having another go at the Supreme Court and whether the law is “severable” or the whole thing is declared unconstitutional because in your own mind the proper level of coverage by a prepaid health plan has to settle these issues, you and the President are hereby encouraged to have a go of it.
As with many things, you are indeed right on this one, and to the extent that people around here are bothered by certain remarks, correcting people on their errors is one sure way to get some people annoyed. But effective political leadership is not simply about being right (as in correct) on everything, and that was the point that the highly-experienced Democrats Bill Daley and Joe Biden were trying to make. Were Chief of Staff Bill Daley and Vice President Joe Biden “anti-woman”?
Why on Earth would they mandate that, since people under age 50 with no family history of issues aren’t advised to get one? So the young healthy people have to pay for colonoscopy coverage they’ll never use, the single males have to pay for maternity coverage they can’t physically make use of, while women under 30 are exempted from the maternity coverage requirement. Obamacare was obviously written by drunken, sadistic, retarded people who wanted to strip insurance coverage from cancer patients, torture healthy people into abject poverty, and punish everyone for ever voting Democrat.
Why on Earth would they mandate that
George, are you seriously asking why Democrats would want to mandate coverage for bending a taxpayer over so someone can run a long rod up an ass? It is what they do, it is who they are.
women under 30 are exempted from the maternity coverage requirement
No, they aren’t. Sibelius told Congress that ACA catastrophic plans (which are available to both men and women under 30) don’t cover maternity costs, but she was mistaken — all ACA plans include maternity coverage.
Tough call George, who are going to believe: Jim or Sibelius?
Don’t believe me, believe Healthcare.gov:
All Health Insurance Marketplace plans cover pregnancy and childbirth.
Oh, and my apology for misspelling the name of the Secretary of HHS; it’s Sebelius.
Hey look George, now your expected to believe Healthcare.gov! Maybe Jim is as stupid as DN.
Under yet another Obamacare screw-up, dependents can stay on their parents’ plan until age 26, but if their parent is part of a large group plan then the dependents don’t have to be covered for maternity. They are exempt.
Starting in January, when a dependent on such a plan finds out she’s pregnant she can get her own policy on the exchange, and that policy will include maternity coverage. That’s a big improvement from the pre-ACA status quo.
Since she can do that, why on Earth would she sign up through an exchange before she’s pregnant? It would just be a waste of money.
If she’s eligible for coverage on her parent’s policy, and she or her parent is willing to pay the extra premium, why not stay on it? On the other hand, she might get a better deal getting her own policy on the exchange.
Btw, I see that women’s groups are challenging the legality of group plans that don’t cover dependent maternity expenses. So that “screw up” might go away.
Given the lack of severability in the ACA, that would mean the “screw up” that goes away is Obamacare. 🙂
Now, why would women sue to prevent women from having the option of not covering something they won’t need? If the individual plans are cheaper than the group plans, why would group plans exist?
Like Pelosi and other spokespeople for Obamacare, what you present are obvious lies and delusions. An extremely complex critical system can’t be tossed out and redesigned in one go by a bunch of people with zero expertise, especially when they’re suffering under the weight of staggering ignorance. Obama didn’t even realize that buying insurance was complicated. Heck, he didn’t even realize the web site didn’t work. David Gregory tried to pin Pelosi down and she is apparently still unaware that millions of health plans are being canceled, insisting that those plans are grandfathered in long after the rest of the nation has horrifyingly realized they’re not.
We are witnesses a true disaster, where the Democrats are unable to even remotely comprehend the reality and magnitude of the failure that’s going to bury them, and bury their party for a generation or two, much like they did when they thought they could win a war to defend perpetual race-based human slavery. They’ll stick to their delusions until there simply aren’t any Democrats in office anymore, and then they’ll spend a couple of generations talking about how they fought the good fight – to cancel cancer patients’ health plans, deny people their existing doctors, raid Medicare for $700 billion dollars, double or triple people’s premiums, and throw tens of millions of innocent people’s lives into utter, stark, terrifying chaos.
the “screw up” that goes away is Obamacare
No, the plaintiffs aren’t arguing that the ACA is unconstitutional. They’re arguing that the law’s non-discrimination provisions imply a requirement to cover maternity care for dependents.
Now, why would women sue to prevent women from having the option of not covering something they won’t need?
They’re suing to prevent group plans from denying maternity benefits to employee dependents. People don’t usually have a lot of choice in group plans — they get whatever the employer offers.
If the individual plans are cheaper than the group plans, why would group plans exist?
They are a tax write-off for the employer, and they are a tool for attracting and retaining employees.
magnitude of the failure that’s going to bury them, and bury their party for a generation or two, much like they did when they thought they could win a war to defend perpetual race-based human slavery.
I boldly predict that the ACA will not be as bad for the Democratic party as secession was.
A colonoscopy is used to catch the deadly disease of colon cancer, among other diseases.
Which fatal diseases are “the pill” and various abortifacients designed to catch?
As it happens, pregnancy is a sometimes fatal condition. But do you really want to argue that the only legitimate function of health care is to avoid deadly diseases? Chronic knee pain isn’t fatal, but I don’t see anyone arguing that knee replacements aren’t legitimate health care. Blindness and deafness aren’t fatal, but insurance routinely covers getting your eyes and ears checked. Isn’t “only getting pregnant when you want to” as legitimate a health goal as being able to walk without pain, or see clearly?
As it happens, pregnancy is a sometimes fatal condition.
Then those who are at high risk of fatal conditions of when pregnant should CERTAINLY have contraceptive hormone treatment approved coverage. Also anyone who has a serious condition that requires such hormone treatment. But that’s NOT what the contraceptive mandate is about, is it?
But do you really want to argue that the only legitimate function of health care is to avoid deadly diseases?
No, but neither do I wish to confuse health care with health insurance. The two are distinct. A health insurance plan is there to prevent a descent into poverty when conditions arise that REQUIRE you to seek health care. A health care plan is there to make routine health care more affordable. If the administration were simply trying ensure the availability of the former, I might support that. Taking over one sixth of the economy to provide the latter, however, not so much.
The ACA philosophy on preventative care is pretty clear. They want it to be available without an out-of-pocket charge so that people won’t skip physicals, cancer screening, vaccinations, etc., in order to save a buck. Contraception is just one part of the overall push to eliminate barriers to use of preventative health services.
“The ACA philosophy on preventative care is pretty clear.”
Well, Obama’s position was that people didn’t get preventative care and that this was something new but really you could always go see the doctor for a check up. You guys always make it sound like you couldn’t even go see a doctor under the old system.
” They want it to be available without an out-of-pocket charge”
The cost is just shifted to increases in your premium or deductible. This isn’t free. Someone pays for it. Some of these things also come with a co-pay and guess what? Under the old system you could always go see your doctor and pay a co-pay. The co-pay never stopped me from seeing a doctor under the old system.
With my new plan I can go see the doctor anytime I want for a $20 or $50 co-pay but I have to spend almost $9000 before the insurance company picks up any costs for treatment. I could break a leg, have surgery, or make a trip to the ER and have to pay it all out of pocket. Why even bother having insurance?
Obamacare does nothing to increase my access to health care. A “free” screening may find some health issue but Obamacare wont help me pay for treatment.
It’s okay if you don’t want women have casual sex,
but then don’t sit there wondering why women, especially single women
don’t vote republican.
The co-pay never stopped me from seeing a doctor under the old system.
Are you arguing that health care consumers are completely price-insensitive? I think you’ll lose that argument. Imagine this experiment: you randomly divide a large population in half. The first half has to pay $20 to get a routine annual physical; the second half pays $20 more in premiums, and isn’t charged to get a physical. Which population will get more physicals?
I have to spend almost $9000 before the insurance company picks up any costs
Really? The ACA out-of-pocket limit for an individual is $6,350.
Why even bother having insurance?
Because your insurer will get you better prices on the stuff you pay for under your deductible, and there’s a chance your bills will exceed your deductible.
“Are you arguing that health care consumers are completely price-insensitive?”
No but where is the threshhold? A $30 co-pay isn’t much of a barrier especially when you compare it with the after affect of Obamacare. Obamcare trades that $30 for massive increases in deductibles and/or premiums. And as I already noted, the cost of “free” exams is added to either the deductible, premium, or both so it is just a dishonest way to hide the costs of Obamacare.
“The first half has to pay $20 to get a routine annual physical; the second half pays $20 more in premiums”
First, it isn’t a dollar for dollar exchange in the real world. I am trading $20 for a 222% increase in deductible.
” Which population will get more physicals?”
Who cares who will get more physicals? I think the difference will be negligible. The real question is what group will be able to afford treatment for issues that arise from those physicals. Obamacare makes it harder for people to afford treatment. With my old plan, I had a greater chance of hitting the deductible and getting insurance to cover costs. With my new deductible it makes it extremely unlikely that I will ever hit the deductible unless I am critically injured or come down with cancer.
So paying for expensive medical services will come out of pocket while before insurance would have help pay the bills sooner.
“The ACA out-of-pocket limit for an individual is $6,350.”
You have to count your premiums too. They are also a cost that must be paid and you must pay them in order to enjoy your insurance coverage.
But $6350 isn’t just the cap on out of pocket expenses. It is also the minimum that people have to spend before insurance picks up the full tab. For me this represents a 222% increase in the minimum I had to spend in order to get the same thing.
“Because your insurer will get you better prices on the stuff you pay for under your deductible”
I don’t think this is the case because insurance also is a perverse incentive to charge more money. Also, any provider discount for prescriptions are rather paltry. But this was the case under the old system. We didn’t need Obamacare for this.
“and there’s a chance your bills will exceed your deductible.”
Pretty slim chance under the new system. The odds for exceeding my deductible under the old system were much better.
” They want it to be available without an out-of-pocket charge so that people won’t skip physicals, cancer screening, vaccinations, etc.,”
So, we needed to take over 1/6 of the economy and jack up everyone’s insurance just to avoid paying a $30 co-pay.
“in order to save a buck.”
I have a 222% increase in my deductible but I get to save $30. Woot!
Compared to a plan that wasn’t open to everyone.
If Obamacare is so great, how come Obama hasn’t signed up himself like he claimed he would as soon as it opened? Probably because his staff won’t let him because then he wouldn’t really have insurance, because the website, at this point, is just a demo interface screen that doesn’t really get you insured because the back end (the real part of a website) hasn’t been written yet. It’s a Potemkin village, a fake town in a Hollywood Western, and the White House is trying to con poor and sick people into thinking they’ve got insurance when they don’t.
And as the New York Times reports, the vaunted “tech surge” where the private IT industry was going to kick in and get the site fixed, well, that turned out to be all of six people.
No, you can’t keep your current plan. That was a lie.
No, you can’t keep your doctor. That was a lie.
No, it’s not going to save you $2,500. That was a huge lie.
No, your new plan isn’t better than your old one. That was a lie.
No, you don’t have more options. That was a lie.
No, the website still doesn’t work. That was a lie.
No, Obama didn’t sign up for his own system. That was a lie.
No, there really wasn’t a tech surge. That was a lie.
No, the site wasn’t fixed by December 1. That was a lie.
People are getting fed up with this BS.
the website, at this point, is just a demo interface screen that doesn’t really get you insured
As it happens I called my insurer yesterday, and they confirmed that they got my Healthcare.gov enrollment, and will mail me my enrollment packet and the bill for my January premium this week.
I’m sure that problems will be found in the systems that connect Healthcare.gov to insurers, but it’s inaccurate to say that those systems don’t exist.
It’s also worth noting that the federal exchange isn’t the only exchange — there are also 14 state-run exchanges, and the District of Columbia has its own. I don’t believe Obama is personally affected by the issues with Healthcare.gov; like John Boehner he would use the D.C. exchange.
No, you can’t keep your current plan.
You can if your insurer still offers the plan you’ve had since 2010.
No, you can’t keep your doctor
You can if you pick a plan that has your doctor in its network.
No, it’s not going to save you $2,500.
It could save you less or much more; individual mileage will vary. It’s saving me about $7,000 in 2014 alone.
No, your new plan isn’t better than your old one
Your new plan will almost certainly be better for at least some definition of “better” (e.g. annual and lifetime benefit limits). In other regards it may be worse — it depends on what your old plan was. Remember that some old plans didn’t cover prescription drugs, didn’t cover hospitalization, capped benefits at $10k, etc.
No, you don’t have more options
You will have new options, and possibly lose old options.
No, the website still doesn’t work
It’s working for most people who use it.
No, Obama didn’t sign up for his own system
Did he say he had?
No, there really wasn’t a tech surge
They brought in new people, reorganized the project management, and added server capacity. How isn’t that a tech surge?
No, the site wasn’t fixed by December 1.
It’s doing much better. I doubt the Healthcare.gov list of outstanding bugs will ever be zero, but they’ve fixed some major problems.
Jim’s replies, summed up:
“You can IF [extremely rare and unlikely case]”
Which means Obama lied, and lied, and lied.
He said that if you like your plan you can keep your plan, period.
That was a flat out lie, and he knew he was lying when he said it over and over again. You retort that you can keep your plan if it hasn’t changed, yet the law requires the plans to change and thus requires their cancellation. That’s why millions of plans are being canceled. All the Democrats were lying about that, over and over, to the American public – whose plans are now being canceled. We were conned.
So no, I can’t keep my current doctor because I cannot choose a plan with my doctor in it, because he’s not part of the mandated Obamacare network. That means I’ll be paying cash, as my doctor is one I’ve worked since in the 1980’s and he who knows me very well.
Obama is claiming the website is working for most people who use it. He said it would be fixed. It’s not. It barely works, and even when it looks like it worked, 30% of the people who think they successfully got insurance through it are not getting insurance because the back-end doesn’t work. That is fraud, and people will go to the hospital thinking they’re insured, run up life-destroying bills, and then find out they’ve been screwed by Obama, who lied, and whose website lied to them. Any private company that did something like that would find its executives rotting in jail.
And Obama said he would sign up for Obamacare. He lied about that, too.
yet the law requires the plans to change and thus requires their cancellation
No, plans that were unchanged since 2010 were grandfathered in, and exempt from ACA requirements.
Obama was wrong to say “if you like your plan you can keep it”, and especially wrong to add “period”, because being able to keep a plan is subject to what the insurance company does. His statement suggests that insurance companies would be forced to keep offering plans forever, and of course they aren’t.
I can’t keep my current doctor because I cannot choose a plan with my doctor in it, because he’s not part of the mandated Obamacare network
There’s no such thing as “the mandated Obamacare network”. Every plan from every insurer has its own network. Are you saying that your doctor isn’t in the network of any insurance plan at all, that he only accepts private-pay patients?
Obama said he would sign up for Obamacare. He lied about that, too.
As of yesterday the word is that he still plans to (although it’s a silly thing for him to do, since the president doesn’t need private health insurance — he’s treated by DOD doctors).
Would those be the two plans in Idaho that accidentally mandated maternity coverage for single men, even before idiots made that the law? Nancy Pelosi was still claiming that plans aren’t being canceled because they’re “grandfathered”, and her liberal interviewer looked incredulous that she could possibly be so stupid and uninformed. The grandfathering didn’t work, because it was designed not to work so that more people would be forced onto the exchanges. The White House and HHS knew that most plans would be canceled. They had estimates of it. They still went out and said, over and over, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” They were lying, and they knew it.
The reason so many doctors aren’t in the mandated Obamacare networks is that in an effort to control costs, the networks are very small and limited. Even top journalists, who can afford almost anything, are finding that none of their existing doctors or hospitals are in the Obamacare networks. They’re telling their millions of viewers about it. They’re tweeting about it. Everyone seems to be
aware of it but hard-core Obamabots in the Administration, who continue to lie. Not even the press is buying it anymore, and now willingly though begrudgingly admits that top hospitals are largely excluded from the available networks because they cost more, and thus charge more for all the mandated freebies that people aren’t allowed to refuse.
“Compared to a plan that wasn’t open to everyone.”
What do you mean it wasn’t open to everyone? Anyone in WA could buy it. I got it even with pre-existing conditions.
What do you mean it wasn’t open to everyone? Anyone in WA could buy it.
You’re asking me to believe that you had a health plan that was open to anyone, regardless of age or health history, offered comprehensive benefits and a low deductible, with affordable premiums. That sounds too good to be true. Why wasn’t everyone in WA on this plan? Why didn’t the insurer grandfather it?
Ya Jim, my old policy was sold on the open market and other people could buy it. It should go without saying that the premiums were different for different ages, just like they are now. Many other people had the same policy and also had their’s cancelled.
The reason my old policy isn’t sold any more is because of Obamacare. It didn’t offer maternity care or dental for children so it is no longer being offered by the insurance company. They only sell Obamacare compliant policies. Talk to Obama and the WA state insurance commissioner if you don’t like it.
You just seem so shocked that Obamacare isn’t what it was sold as. Welcome to reality. My deductible went up 222%. There are a lot of people out there in the same situation. That is also a 222% increase in my potential health care costs because my old plan paid for everything after the deductible was met.
My Obamacare options all had higher premiums and/or deductibles. So for people like me, Obamacare raises the costs of insurance and health care. Don’t forget I live in one of the bluest states in the nation with our own website and everything.
Ovarian Cancer,
Endometriosis,
PCOS,
Excessive bleeding,
Post menopause hormone treatment,
How’s that for a partial list.
Not to mention women with certain Liver, Kidney, Bone or heart conditions should not get pregnant,
in which case Contraceptives are a prophylactic treatment for life extension.
I’d suggest you consult your doctor for details of your care.
You’re confusing diagnosis with treatment. The pill is not a diagnostic device, it is a treatment for the conditions you mention, something even the Catholic Church doesn’t object to.
“We need a clean up on aisle 5…some idiot is knocking over straw men again”
So, you don’t want a medical system to pay for treatments,
but you only want it to pay for diagnosis?
Otherwise you are just being argumentative.
But you don’t see a lot of controversy over the colonoscopy mandate.
Because that’s a harder battle to fight. You are right that for some people it is about the beliefs not the predictability of the health care. But you are wrong to claim that just because that’s true for some people that it is true for everyone. Birth control is a weakness of Obamacare, hence, it is attacked.
It’s only a weakness in the eyes of people who see something suspect in contraception, and attacking that “weakness” gives Democrats ammunition for their “war on women” rhetoric. The GOP comes off as chauvinist when it complains so loudly about the unfairness of having men pay for insurance that covers birth control pills and maternity care, but never about the unfairness of having women pay for insurance that covers prostate and testicular cancer.
Do you really want to make the case that pregnancy is equivalent to cancer? Seriously? Nobody, even the Catholic Church objects to hormone therapy, including birth control, for women at risk of endometriosis, or whatever other “parade of horribles” you can think up, but routine pregnancy is not a disease.
Rush Limbaugh sure did.
Sandra Fluke was testifying that Oral Contraceptives are used to treat numerous conditions and Rush went out there and attacked her for “Having So much sex”.
Pregnancy is not a disease, but it carries significant health risks, and is managed with the same sort of expensive medical services (doctors, hospitals, drugs) that we use for disease. A political position that says men should get insurance coverage for cancer, but women shouldn’t get coverage for contraception or pregnancy — because cancer is a disease while pregnancy isn’t — is going to come off looking sexist.
“Obamacare mandates coverage for colonoscopies as well.”
Your comparison doesn’t work very well because there isn’t a religious objection to providing colonoscopies. However, if some group did have one, they should get an exemption.
Exactly — the contraception argument is about religion (or, more generally, views of female sexuality), not about whether insurance should cover routine expenses. That’s the exact point I was making.
“(or, more generally, views of female sexuality)”
No, the religious view is about procreation which is more than just women having sex.
“That’s the exact point I was making.”
The point you were making is that Democrats will frame this in a dishonest way as an attack against gender. Ya, we get that you guys do that.
Well, hey, it’s okay with me if you want to keep up this line,
But dn-guy, it is just a strategy employed regardless of accuracy. That is the whole point of it. If the businesses offered birth controll in spite of their religion, the gender based attacks would continue.
Republican views on any given subject don’t matter because the Democrats use gender and race based attacks regardless. You do realize this right?
Google, “When did you stop beating your wife.”
And do you really think people who disagree with you about Obamacare do so because they hate women? Do any of the conservatives you know in real life hate women? Try going out and meeting some new people and you just might find they are not the monsters Obama and the Democrats want you to believe they are.
If you really believe that not wanting to pay for the birth control of someone you don’t know is a “war” on them, you’re an idiot. If you don’t believe it, but say it anyway, you’re a lying demagogue.
One of the pernicious problems with the way that health coverage works in the US today is the insurance pit. Perhaps the biggest benefit of having health insurance is merely being able to use the prices the insurance mandates for things. From most people’s perspective it makes the most sense to fold as many health care costs under higher insurance premiums in order to gain access to the price controls of insurance. These practices actively disincentivize people from paying for their own health care needs, even when they are predictable and routine expenses.
Except that the trend is towards higher deductibles, which means that most people are paying for their health care needs (at rates negotiated by their insurer, which are presumably lower than what they could negotiate solo) unless and until they need some very expensive care.
Logically, costs are spread out to everyone paying into insurance, so in general people are paying for the average costs of routine health care expenditures plus a bit extra to subsidize the people with cancer and whatnot. Plus a bit extra on top of that to pay for the bureaucracy, CEO salaries, and profits, of course.
The problem is that it can be difficult to reduce spending by paying outside of insurance, due to the price control strategies that are so prevalent these days. It’s a pernicious ratchet effect which causes insurance to take over all aspects of health care, even when it’s not beneficial to do so. The Affordable Care Act’s heavy reliance on insurance coverage only accelerates that problem.
“Plus a bit extra on top of that to pay for the bureaucracy, CEO salaries, and profits, of course.”
What of course drives republicans to madness is that Medicare has about a 2% overhead rate, while Private Insurance companies used to have about a 30% overhead rate.
Obamacare has forced Insurance companies to cut their overheads fro 30 to 15%.
It’s an odd thing, the feds are much more efficient at “Writing Checks” then the private sector.
It’s an odd thing, the feds are much more efficient at “Writing Checks” then the private sector.
Yep, Jim just can’t out do DN on idiocy.
Got to agree with Leland on that. The Feds might be totally clueless when it comes to health care reform, but they’re real classy when they write checks using my money.
What of course drives republicans to madness is that Medicare has about a 2% overhead rate, while Private Insurance companies used to have about a 30% overhead rate.
That’s because Medicare is completely indifferent to fraud, you idiot.
You throw out that Fraud line.
Do you have any sources?
Reports?
Studies?
Medicare spends $500 Billion a year. If one percent of that is fraud, that’ $5 Billion.
Can you point to $5 billion in fraudulent claims made on Medicare?
Easily.
An article from April 2012 in the Journal of the American Medical Association estimated the amount of fraud in Medicaid and Medicare at a low end of 3%, a medium range of 6%, and a high range of 10%. The GAO estimated the fraud in Medicare at 7.9 to 8.4%, and at 11% for Medicare Advantage.
Since we are all space cadets, let’s put this in terms of the nukber of Falcon 9 launches we could do if there wasn’t so much fraud. Assuming $60m for a launch and the 1% or $5b in fraud, we are looking at 83 Falcon 9 launches a year. Because its NASA, double the price and we are still looking at almost 42 launches a year. Any fraud over 1% could buy a lot of payloads for those launches.
But hey free birth control.
Hilariously, the Feds haven’t written the code that actually writes the checks for the ACA.
“Except that the trend is towards higher deductibles,”
Thanks Obamacare. My deductible went up just over 222%.
Remember when the Republicans were big fans of high deductibles? How they encourage patients to forego unnecessary procedures, bargain shop between providers, and use their market power to hold down the growth of health care spending?
I went with a higher deductible for my ACA plan because I am saving so much in premiums that I can use that savings to cover out-of-pocket expenses. And if we don’t have many expenses, we can pocket the savings.
“Remember when the Republicans were big fans of high deductibles? ”
I remember when Democrats said Obamacare was meant to end those types of plans. I was forced into one when my old plan was cancelled. My new plan is worse than my old one. My other choice was an increase in premiums. There was no way for me to get equal care for the same amount of money.
And here you are telling me that my costs going up is a good thing and that I should like it.
All the promises about what Obamacare would do are lies. I lost my insurance and my new insurance is more expensive. That is just insurance. Obamacare is also a failure in health care.
Unfortunately, Jim’s last response to me did not permit a reply in that location, so here’s his comment and my response:
The ACA philosophy on preventative care is pretty clear. They want it to be available without an out-of-pocket charge so that people won’t skip physicals, cancer screening, vaccinations, etc., in order to save a buck. Contraception is just one part of the overall push to eliminate barriers to use of preventative health services.
Physicals;
cancer screening;
vaccinations; and
birth control.
One of the above is NOT like the others. Guess which.
Also, it is my understanding that “the pill”, at least in generic form, is free by mandate. Can you tell me which OTHER drugs are also MANDATED by the U.S. government to be free?
One of the above is NOT like the others. Guess which.
They all strike me as medical services that help people stay healthy.
Can you tell me which OTHER drugs are also MANDATED by the U.S. government to be free?
You listed one category yourself, vaccines — the ACA mandates 10 free vaccines for adults. There’s also aspirin (to prevent cardiovascular disease for men and women of certain ages). You can read the entire list of no-copay preventative benefits. Most of them are services (e.g. disease screening), but some are drugs.
Vaccines are not that expensive. Getting 10 “free” vaccines that you may never or rarely use isn’t a good tradeoff for all of the negative impacts of Obamacare.
Do you have a list of prices handy or are you just saying that?
How often do you get vaccinated? Are some “free” vaccines worth the government taking over 1/6 of the economy and ruining the doctor patient relationship among other negative side effects? Bear in mind the cost of these free services is transfered to higher deductibles and/or premiums.
All the stuff we were told is “free” isn’t free at all. We were lied to.
Here are a few honest questions for this forum. How is a “religious corporation” denying me coverage not an infringement of my own religious freedom? What criteria make a corporation religious? And let’s say a muslim corporation operating in the US decides its health policy based on sharia law. You guys have no problem with that? Can a corporation decide that they are suddenly devout Seventh Day Adventists and deny everyone on the payroll medical insurance?
Here’s your honest answer: It’s none of any government’s fucking business…. Unless you want to strike down the “emanations of a penumbra” right to privacy in Roe v. Wade.
How is a “religious corporation” denying me coverage not an infringement of my own religious freedom?
Because that isn’t an infringement of your religious freedom. It’s the same policy no matter what religion you happen to be. Now, if the health insurance policy was offered only on condition that you drop your wicked Pastafarian heresy and embrace J. R. “Bob” Dobbs as your Lord, Savoir, and Counterstrike teammate, then you’d have a case.
“Can a corporation decide that they are suddenly devout Seventh Day Adventists and deny everyone on the payroll medical insurance?”
The doctor who set my broken finger after a rather hard “softball” was thrown to me at 3rd base in seventh grade gym class worked for an Adventist clinic, just as other clinics have a Roman Catholic affiliation. Apart from promoting a vegetarian diet as part of an interpretation of the Bible as encouraging what is regarded to be a healthful dietary practice (OK, Rand, OK), I was not aware of Adventists having any religious teachings against modern medical care.
You’re right — I was thinking of other religious groups (Jehovah’s Witnesses are one, yes?) that don’t believe in blood transfusions, or vaccinations, or whatever. You understand my point here, though.
“I was thinking of other religious groups (Jehovah’s Witnesses are one, yes?) that don’t believe in blood transfusions, or vaccinations, or whatever.”
Perhaps you are thinking of Christian Scientists?
So the government pays out subsidies to insurance companies and then the customer’s deductibles are so high that they essentially pay all of their health care costs out of pocket. This is just a way to funnel money to Democrat insurance companies.
People with pre-existing conditions that don’t get a subsidy are going to have a harder time getting health care. But free birth control. Never mind that all of your other health care expenses will all be out of pocket.
I can’t wait for the employer mandate to kick in so everyone else gets f’d too. Misery loves company.
This is just a way to funnel money to Democrat insurance companies.
Under the ACA if your insurer spends less than 80% of collected premiums on medical benefits you get a rebate.
I can’t wait for the employer mandate to kick in so everyone else gets f’d too.
The employer mandate only applies to employers with more than 50 full-time employees, so 96% of employers are exempt. 90% of the affected employers already provide insurance to their employers. So you’re talking about a new requirement for 0.4% of employers — about 21,000 companies in all, out of the 5.7 million U.S. employers.
90% of the affected employers already provide insurance to their employers.[sic]
But Jim, most of those policies don’t cover aroma therapy or acupuncture. And the co-pays for abortion pills are, like, $3.50. They are illegal under obamacare. How do you think those employers [sic] are going to react to having to pay for that crap?
Most of the stuff required by the ACA is already standard in group plans (e.g. maternity coverage has been required by law since 1978). It’s been estimated that insurers will spend 2% more to comply with ACA requirements. That’s an increase that will be passed on to employers, but it’s a modest one. Some of the ACA requirements have taken effect already (e.g. having to cover dependents up to 26), and we haven’t seen any big changes in the number of employers offering coverage.
Jim claims:
“It’s been estimated that insurers will spend 2% more to comply with ACA requirements.”
By who? When? how many times? When was the most recent estimate? Who else estimated this value and what did they come up with?
I’ve been trying, without success, to track down that 2% reference. In lieu of that,here’s an Indiana study of the effect of the ACA on premiums in that state. It states:
By contrast:
This is in line with what I’ve read elsewhere: that ACA-required benefits are generous compared to what was common in the pre-ACA individual market, causing premium increases there. But in the group market, even the small group market, the premium increases are smaller, and mostly due to factors other than newly required benefits. The ACA doesn’t require much that isn’t already routinely provided in the group market.
Other states did their own estimates, which you can read here. I didn’t see any state pointing to required benefits as a reason for big premium increases in the group market. For example:
* Alaska predicts group market premiums to increase by 1.1%
* Maine predicts group market premium increases will be “primarily due to the elimination of a carrier’s ability to use group size adjustments and the impact of the introduction of the exchange”
* Maryland predicts premium increases of 2%, because “the small group market in Maryland already mirrors many of the ACA’s requirements with respect to Essential Health Benefits”
* In Nevada “Small group premiums may increase approximately 0.5% on average due to the essential benefits and actuarial value requirements”
* Ohio expects “premium increases ranging from 5%-15%. This is attributable to minimum expansion of covered benefits and a more static insured risk pool.”
* Oregon says: “Premiums in the small group market are projected to increase by approximately 3%”
* Premium increases in Wisconsin “are primarily due to the elimination of carrier’s ability to use health status as a rating variable and the elimination of group size adjustments.”
“This is in line with what I’ve read elsewhere: that ACA-required benefits are generous compared to what was common in the pre-ACA individual market,”
My costs went up and benefits down. The generous benefits are for services most people will not use. Sure I have maternity care and dental for my children but those benefit expansion do not benefit me. They don’t have a positive impact on my health insurance or access to health care. Perversely, they have a negative affect on both.
“so 96% of employers are exempt”
Don’t forget about the small group plans. There are no exempt plans. They all have to meet Obamacare mandates.
” 90% of the affected employers already provide insurance to their employers.”
It doesn’t matter if they offer health insurance. It matters if the insurance plans meet the Obamacare mandates. In the year before the employer mandate was delayed, we saw mass cancellations as companies made changes to meet the mandates. Now that the employer mandate was delayed, we are seeing more companies do the same this year in preparation for when Obamacare kicks in. Millions of people have been losing and will lose their old plans because just having insurance isn’t the requirement.
The claim that only people in the individual market will be subject to policy changes due to Obamacare is a lie.
I guess the negative impacts of your ideology are just statistics. We have heard this before.
They all have to meet Obamacare mandates.
You are confusing the employer mandate (the requirement that employers with >50 full time employees provide health insurance) with the requirements that all plans have to meet (covering essential benefits, not having benefit caps, spending at least 80% of revenue on medical care, etc.).
It matters if the insurance plans meet the Obamacare mandates.
Yes, but group plans mostly meet those requirements (mandates is really the wrong word here) already. See the studies I linked to in this thread, or previous discussions. About 50% of pre-ACA individual market plans had the actuarial value of an ACA bronze plan, the lowest level allowed. Only 1% of pre-ACA group market plans fail to meet that standard.
There are no plans that are exempt from meeting Obamacare mandates. Whether individual, group, or employer. Employers have been canceling their plans to get into compliance for the last two years and more will come.
Obama’s own CBO reports said that over 50 million people would lose their policies. And this was reported to Obama and his underlings. The report was the smoking gun that Obama knew people were not going do be able to keep their plans but Obama continnued saying they would for years after he knew the truth.
Stop trying to claim that Obamacare doesn’t affect people outside of the individual market, it isn’t true. Everyone’s policies are effected and so is their health care. Just wait and see how people don’t like the new dr/patient relationship and endless streams of dictates out of HHS about health care not just health insurance.
Not being American I’ve nothing to worry about with these “health insurance” issues, but a question, is toothpaste covered? Its use is as much a health care issue as contraception.
Toothpaste will not be covered until all of the toothpaste manufacturers are democratized and their workers make $50/hour. Then the government will mandate that toothpaste is provided for free by the taxpayer so the manufacturers don’t go out of business.
Well that seems so unfair to people who still have their own teeth!
yes, Kentucky and Alabama will be dramatically underserved by this policy.
What century are you living in?
Jim wrote:
“As it happens, pregnancy is a sometimes fatal condition.”
The feminists use this stupid argument all the time. The statistics show that this is such an infrequent occurrence as to be inside the noise level, statistically. You would up-end the entire health care industry for a statistical insignificance….
YES OF COURSE it’s a tragedy when someone dies (got to eliminate the usual imbecilic riposte).
To use this as an excuse to force millions of dollars of payment by people who neither need nor want to pay for someone else’s contraception is ridiculous. In some cases it’s a religious objection; in many many others it’s abhorrance of being forced to pay for someone else’s lifestyle.
Contraception is, in the main by a huge margin, NOT a health issue. It’s a lifestyle issue and a life planning issue.
Pay for it yourself.
You would up-end the entire health care industry for a statistical insignificance
Requiring coverage for birth control pills — a pretty cheap drug — hardly up-ends the entire health care industry.
In some cases it’s a religious objection; in many many others it’s abhorrance of being forced to pay for someone else’s lifestyle.
There are a lot of health insurance benefits that are related to lifestyle. When you pay health insurance premiums you’re paying for ER services for people who drive too fast, or ride motorcycles, or bike to work, or eat an unhealthy diet. As far as I can tell there’s no controversy over that. It’s only controversial when the lifestyle in question is young women having sex — a “lifestyle” that is completely normal. Singling out young women in this way is blatantly sexist.
Mandating that health insurance covers completely routine and predictable expenses such as contraception changes it from insurance to something else. In EVERY other field, insurance is meant to ensure that the insured is not driven to financial ruin by an unpredictable catastrophe; to take an example, you don’t expect your house insurance to cover having your central heating boiler serviced. You do expect it to pay out if your house is struck by lightning.
Personally, I think that going back to this principle in healthcare would be a good idea. It doesn’t cover yearly checkups, having your teeth scaled or inexpensive preventative medicine such as aspirin for CVD; it does cover you if you slip on an icy sidewalk and break your leg.
Further to this, I fail even more to see why one person should have to pay for someone else’s routine expenses. I think it’s reasonable to expect that a 50-year-old man should have to shoulder some of the cost of (for example) treatment for ovarian cancer in someone else, or even complications of pregnancy. I don’t see why the same man should have to pay for someone else’s contraception – or for someone else’s Lipitor, for that matter.
One more thing: If people paid their own routine medical expenses then such expenses would be lower. A lot lower. Less admin overhead, and MUCH less gouging.
“I think it’s reasonable to expect that a 50-year-old man should have to shoulder some of the cost of (for example) treatment for ovarian cancer in someone else, or even complications of pregnancy.”
Expect to have to burn your Tea-Party card now. You just said 5 things that are anathema
to Conservatives:
1) Think,
2) reasonable
3) Cost share,
4) Ovary
5) Pregnancy.
Dude, you just became the Anti-Christ to them.
“Requiring coverage for birth control pills — a pretty cheap drug — hardly up-ends the entire health care industry.”
Democrats are using it as a reason to up end the whole system. Obamacare is more than “free” birth control.
” It’s only controversial when the lifestyle in question is young women having sex — a “lifestyle” that is completely normal.”
The controversy about forcing employers who belong to a religion to pay for services isn’t about limiting a person’s lifestyle. It is about limiting the rights of religious people. Having employees purchase their own birth control isn’t an infringement of their rights especially when you take into consideration all of the other medial expenses that people have to pay out of pocket.
“Singling out young women in this way is blatantly sexist.”
Yes, we know you were going to claim it is a gender attack but it is dishonest to frame it that way. You want to give special treatment to people based on their gender just so that you can continue to use this gender attack.
“Requiring coverage for birth control pills — a pretty cheap drug — hardly up-ends the entire health care industry.”
It is the propaganda used to justify the upending of an entirely successful system.
And you know it.
And if it’s so cheap, then why is it covered?
the upending of an entirely successful system
Did anyone consider the pre-ACA status quo “entirely successful”? Costs were soaring, health outcomes were no better than in countries spending a fraction of what we spend, 50 million people were uninsured, and medical bills were a factor in a huge fraction of bankruptcies.
And if it’s so cheap, then why is it covered?
To remove any financial incentive to skip taking them.
Did anyone consider the pre-ACA status quo “entirely successful”?
The thousands of people who come here from other countries every year for medical care certainly do.
Costs are still soaring with Obamacare so why did we need to pass Obamacare if it maintains the status quo?
Obamacare doesn’t make health care more affordable or increase access. Take the subsidies for example, paying premiums doesn’t help people pay for care. And subsidies for out of pocket expenses still require you to pay all of your bills upfront and float those expenses until you get your tax return the following year. If someone couldn’t afford to treat medical conditions before Obamacare, they likely still can’t afford to.
But free* birth control and a yearly exam. Sweet.
* Free meaning you still pay for it only the costs are hidden dishonestly.
“Did anyone consider the pre-ACA status quo “entirely successful”? ”
Here you, for about the zillionth time, betray your Statist Utopian outlook.
Jim NOTHING is going to be “entirely successful” Not ever.
Never.
Get that?
I doubt that you do. And so you will therefore espouse giving more and more and more power to Big Government to chase down this chimera of perfection. By doing so you will destroy what works, enslave the population, and sell your liberty cheaply.
What the free market does is build systems that do the best for the most people. The system we had did great for 90% of the people. No one went without health CARE. For years Conservatives have been presenting common sense adjustments tot he system which were small, retractable, whose results could be observed.
Liberals and Statist Thugs ignored sensible ideas to instead install a wealth redistribution system, which also gives Big Government more power and steals your liberty.
And you are seeing the fruits of your delusions:
You have cancer patient Bill Elliot kicked off his health plan which he could afford – kicked off by Obamacare. He could NOT afford the $1500 a month premiums of the Obmacare plan. This he told Megyn Kelly
A guy named Steve Tucker started a fund to shame the insurance companies to restore his plan. Both men were critical of Obamacare.
Both men received audit letters from the IRS on the same day.
It’s people like you who destroy other’s lives by your willful suspension of logic and reason and vote for South Side Chicago thugs who have no business being president.
Jim: “We have announced some changes to our sandwich menu. The new sandwich will cost less and taste better. Pinky swear.”
Customer: “This sandwich tastes horrible.”
Jim: “You get more toppings so you should really enjoy it more.”
Customer: “I think it is the combination of toppings that makes it taste worse and I don’t really like paying more for a sandwich that tastes worse than the old ones.”
Jim: “But you get pickles, potatoes, and anchovies! This new sandwich is great and well worth the extra costs no matter what it tastes like.”
Customer: “But you said it would taste better and cost less.”
Jim: “If you don’t like it, there must be something wrong with you. You didn’t seriously listen to the claims I was making when selling the new sandwich did you?”
Customer: “But you pinky swore. That shit means something.”
Jim: “Lol sucker. I’m going to go play with my cats now. I am trying to train one to shake for treats. Isn’t going very well but with a few more years and maybe just the right cat I should be able to do it.”
dn-guy – I know you were being sarcastic, but isn’t the sharing of large and unforeseeable costs sorta the point of insurance? Bearing in mind, of course, that in the case I used it’s just about as likely that it will be a 25-year-old woman paying for your prostate cancer treatment. (BTW, I don’t know you at all – I assume that you are a man, based on your nom de blog.)
The point is that insurance usually covers just that – unforeseeable, unlikely and catastrophically expensive events. Not things that are entirely foreseeable. Some might think that people ought to subsidise the medical expenses of others, but that’s a different argument altogether.
Jim blathers:
“There are a lot of health insurance benefits that are related to lifestyle. When you pay health insurance premiums you’re paying for ER services for people who drive too fast, or ride motorcycles, or bike to work, or eat an unhealthy diet. As far as I can tell there’s no controversy over that. It’s only controversial when the lifestyle in question is young women having sex — a “lifestyle” that is completely normal. Singling out young women in this way is blatantly sexist.”
Nice try with the sexist card but that dog won’t hunt. Not in a place where people use their heads for other than a hat rack:
What happens to a person’s premiums when they drive too fast and get into an accident and rack up 10’s of thousands in hospital bills, under a free market system?
They go up!
What happens to someone’s premiums when they start smoking?
They go up!
But not when a woman wants to buy contraceptives. her premium doe snot go up.
you continually mix up the concept of insurance with the concept of wealth transfer.
Dope.
Jim responds:
“I’ve been trying, without success, to track down that 2% reference.
of course you can’t…it’s a delusion.
Any estimate is going to have to estimate the number of kids who sign up for insurance. They are going to make assumptions…they must. You pick the sources which are almost as honest as the global warmists.
“In lieu of that,here’s an Indiana study of the effect of the ACA on premiums in that state. ”
Once again you defame your own source and fail to report everything. Once again you lie about your own source:
You leave out such things as:
“Due to currently undefined regulations governing the reinsurance program and temporary nature of the program, the impact of the transitional reinsurance program has not been quantified for this analysis. However, the reinsurance program may have a material impact on market premium rates.”
“Assuming enrollment growth and medical trend in the high risk pool populations consistent with the individual insured market through calendar year 2013, the estimated premium impact of merging the high risk pool population into the commercially insured individual market is between 35% and 45%.”
“If a small portion of individuals currently uninsured elect to purchase insurance, it is expected that these individuals would have disproportionately higher medical benefit costs relative to the remaining uninsured population. This will increase premium rates relative to what would occur if a large percentage of the currently uninsured elect to purchase coverage.”
Please go away until you can manage to stop lying.