Required Contraceptive Insurance Coverage

[stebo0728]

Ok so this has been in the news a while, but its getting more steam lately

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html


So is this a new way to have the same old abortion argument? Basically the law would require all healthcare plans to include coverage for contraceptives, and even possibly sterilization for females who desire it. Sounds simple enough, the problem, or I should say the outrage, comes in that the term "contraceptive" is left vague, and would most certainly include more controversial methods, such as abortion or the morning after pill. Im still trying to make sense of this, so I'm not arguing either way on it, but here's my thoughts.

On one hand, supportive positions for the idea would point to the fact that the person(s) covered by such plans dont have to use the services, they are still free to abstain from the practices they disagree with. The measure only ensures that anyone wanting such services are free, and financially able to do so. However, the other side of that coin would be the fact that if a person's employer does NOT carry a policy covering these practices, they are free to seek alternative employement, where a more favorable policy can be found.

Then there's the undertone of market manipulation, akin to the troubles the mandate are facing currently. I admit to not knowing the complete numbers and ramifications of having and not having these riders in a policy, but the argument would be such that forcing policies to include coverage for these services is an undue government involvement in the marketplace.

A large segment of people are attacking this based on "separation of church and state" arguments. I dont see that, based on the first argument I listed, since the church is still free to teach against the services, and the people are still free to abstain from the services. I remember in my earlier church going years, we had a secretary that did our officework, and she was an atheist, never attended church, but she was good at running the books, and she did so. I can see a scenario like that, where an employee of a religious institution does not subscribe to the religion, its just another employer.

My current position: based on the same reasons I am against the general mandate, I would also be against this measure. However, IF we are going to have the general mandate become the law of the land, it seems logical to me that the law would also have to come from a "treat all equal" position, and include these service coverages as mandates as well. My jury's still out though.

[IBCoupe]

However, the other side of that coin would be the fact that if a person's employer does NOT carry a policy covering these practices, they are free to seek alternative employement, where a more favorable policy can be found.

Bad public policy is bad.

[szh]

However, the other side of that coin would be the fact that if a person's employer does NOT carry a policy covering these practices, they are free to seek alternative employement, where a more favorable policy can be found.

Bad public policy is bad.

What does the chart represent?

Z

[stebo0728]

However, the other side of that coin would be the fact that if a person's employer does NOT carry a policy covering these practices, they are free to seek alternative employement, where a more favorable policy can be found.

Bad public policy is bad.

Im thinking it was supposed to be funny in some way.

Bad policy is indeed bad. Im not convinced my argument you quoted is bad policy. It depends on your general outake on public policy. If you're coming from an individual liberty and personal responsibility angle, like the one we were built on, then my argument is absolutely good policy. But if you approach from the angle that government knows best, and can manage our lives better than we can ourselves, then I can see your perceived flaw in my argument. Which angle do you prefer?

[stebo0728]

Actually, he might have accidentally posted the "Number of households on foodstamps" chart.

[Bubba1]

Well, it sounds like it boils down to a tie between employment and health insurance. I don't see how or why any employer should be able to dictate an employee's basic decisions regarding their own healthcare.

[stebo0728]

I would agree, except for the fact that employers in most cases pay around 80-100% of the premiums for the coverage. To be honest, my take on healthcare coverage for a while has been to remove it from employment benefit status. Make it easier and cheaper to acquire individual or family policies, and then let employees negotiate pay adequate enough for them to pay their own premiums. Of course, free market would dictate that you cant FORCE employers NOT to offer the coverage as a benefit. I would think there would be sufficient enough market incentive for them to do so.

[IBCoupe]

Bad public policy is bad.

What does the chart represent?

Z

U6 Unemployment.

The notion being: when there are really no jobs out there, it's a bit odd to propose that one can simply change jobs because the healthcare plan offered by the employer is inadequate to their needs or desires. In this economy, that's simply not any part of reality.

[IBCoupe]

I would agree, except for the fact that employers in most cases pay around 80-100% of the premiums for the coverage.

Presumably in exchange for reduced wages.

To be honest, my take on healthcare coverage for a while has been to remove it from employment benefit status. Make it easier and cheaper to acquire individual or family policies, and then let employees negotiate pay adequate enough for them to pay their own premiums.

This is generally expected to happen relatively soon as a result of the main provisions of the Affordable Care Act coming into effect in 2014. Especially among small employers, it's anticipated that employees will lose coverage through their jobs and will buy from the available subsidized plans on the market created by the Act.

Whether employers adjust their compensation accordingly, however, will remain to be seen for a while.

[stebo0728]

Whether employers adjust their compensation accordingly, however, will remain to be seen for a while.

Some companies would pass the adjustment on, some wont. Its going to be up to the employees to demand this. This is one of the rare times that employment unions actually serve a positive purpose. Unionized labor will see this adjustment almost immediately in not instantaneously. Non unionized employees will have to be more proactive on the matter.

[IBCoupe]

Agreed.

[szh]

What does the chart represent?

Z

U6 Unemployment.

The notion being: when there are really no jobs out there, it's a bit odd to propose that one can simply change jobs because the healthcare plan offered by the employer is inadequate to their needs or desires. In this economy, that's simply not any part of reality.

That can happen, yes.

However, let's also note that the actual numbers are very, very industry-specific. The manufacturing sector is clearly harder hit than others. Many high-tech industries are still doing very well. We continue to have difficulty in filling certain positions at our place for example - simply not enough applicants (with the experience we need). We have retained two recruiting agencies to do targeted searches for some of them ... costs us money.

Z

[IBCoupe]

Sure, but instead of carving out industry-specific exceptions, Congress created a general rule.

[stebo0728]

Ok so this thing is just getting soooo out of control. First of all, since when the hell is contraception a right that everyone is due? This Sandra Fluke character, who apparently has more sex than Sookie since she spends $3000 a year on condoms, says women cant afford them? First of all, last time I was in the game, the guy provided them, maybe thats changed. But who says you HAVE to have sex? Who says having contraception is a RIGHT? And then, for years you've been able to get a brown bag from the health department, has that changed? Im just really scratching my head at this whole thing now.

[bigbadberry3]

Ok so this thing is just getting soooo out of control. First of all, since when the hell is contraception a right that everyone is due? This Sandra Fluke character, who apparently has more sex than Sookie since she spends $3000 a year on condoms, says women cant afford them? First of all, last time I was in the game, the guy provided them, maybe thats changed. But who says you HAVE to have sex? Who says having contraception is a RIGHT? And then, for years you've been able to get a brown bag from the health department, has that changed? Im just really scratching my head at this whole thing now.

The pill is much more than a brown bag. Many women take it to help with ovarian issues or general health issues as well.

[stebo0728]

Ok, even still, do they have the right to free coverage?

[bigbadberry3]

I have yet to decide where I stand on the actual idea, but I'm leaning against this let insurance pick and choose what it wants to pay for.

My post was actually to address the misconception that because a woman is on the pill she must be promiscuous. I just won't RUSH to conclusions

[stebo0728]

I understand what you mean, but the thing is, they are making it about contraception, not about actual health issues. But regardless of the reason you want to don, there is no right to the coverage. As there is not right, forcing any organization to provide the service is reprehensible.

[C-Kwik]

Ok so this thing is just getting soooo out of control. First of all, since when the hell is contraception a right that everyone is due? This Sandra Fluke character, who apparently has more sex than Sookie since she spends $3000 a year on condoms, says women cant afford them? First of all, last time I was in the game, the guy provided them, maybe thats changed. But who says you HAVE to have sex? Who says having contraception is a RIGHT? And then, for years you've been able to get a brown bag from the health department, has that changed? Im just really scratching my head at this whole thing now.

Did you even bother watching her testimony? Or do you just go off of what has been blown up by the media (via Limbaugh)? First, she explained the potential costs for contraceptives for women (in general). Second, does it matter how much sex she has? Perhaps she's in an monogamous relationship. Perhaps she isn't. Her sexual activity is irrelevant. Third, she didn't say condoms. She said contraceptives.

[BusyBadger]

Third, she didn't say condoms. She said contraceptives.

Since Georgetown is a Catholic school I say they buy her a calendar, tell her to use the rhythm method and call it a day.

[stebo0728]

Sorry I dont listen to Limbaugh. Like I said in a post above, they are making contraception the issue, not women's health. BUT even if they were making women's health the issue, access to the condoms/pills/whatever is not a right, its not something that women are "owed" or men either.

[C-Kwik]

Sorry I dont listen to Limbaugh. Like I said in a post above, they are making contraception the issue, not women's health. BUT even if they were making women's health the issue, access to the condoms/pills/whatever is not a right, its not something that women are "owed" or men either.

I never said you listen to him. I merely suggested your assumption that she was talking about $3000 in condoms comes from the media blowing up Limbaugh's statements...which were a misrepresentation of what Fluke actually said. If you had taken the time to listen to or watch her testimony, you wouldn't have made that assumption.

Note that I made no comment about the actual issue. Both sides have valid arguments. And the solutions each side want are essentially diametrically opposed to each other. As much as I support women having access to contraceptives, its tough to ignore the rights of the church not to pay for something they do not believe in. One potential solution would be universal healthcare (take it out of the hands of the church), but that's a whole other debate to be had.

Since Georgetown is a Catholic school I say they buy her a calendar, tell her to use the rhythm method and call it a day.

Only if she were married. If she is not married, they'd give her a chastity belt.

[stebo0728]

Not universal healtcare, that implies one's rights to healthcare, which simply does not exist and cannot exist. Instead, as I laid out previously, we need to strive to restructure the system toward personal responsibility. A system where the PERSON handles their health coverage, where they opt in for this coverage, out for that coverage. Yes there are hurdles, but this is where I believe the system should be.

[C-Kwik]

The only person making that implication is you. I only stated it as a potential solution to a very specific problem. I wasn't seeking to turn this into a debate about UH so I didn't expand on it. It really just shifts the argument to something else.

As for your "solution" how does it address the problems we have now? The only people likely to have any bit of negotiating power are people who are already in positions in which insurance is offered. People working cashiers jobs at McDonald's are in the circumstance you describe already. What would change? If anything we would probably see an increase in overall costs, given the costs of administrating a bunch of individual policies are higher than administrating a policy group. There are benefits to economies of scale that help employers reduce their costs over individual plans. Not to mention, most employers actually have self-funded ERISA plans where insurance companies are merely the administrators. Where this may become more costly for an individual is that insurance companies are seeking profit off the insurance business. Whereas employers are generally just looking to reduce their net healthcare expenditures.

[AppleBonker]

Lol. Leave it to Arizona to try to and work around a religious objection to contraception, but make it much worse.

[stebo0728]

Ya, you can have it as long as you dont use it for what its intended for?!? Thats a bit wack I must admit. Its sad this has to come up and occupy so much of the narrative at a time when our economy is on a precipice. Bottom line, no one has a right to anything tangible. Our certain inalienable rights are all intangible. Theres just no way to claim a right to a good or service. I dont have a problem with the goods and services in question, I dont seek to limit anyones ability to acquire them on their own. I dont have a problem with any insurance carrier or employer willingly offering either subsidized or fully covered access to the products. My problem is when government seeks to interject a right for someone that doesnt exist. To force subsidizing of a product, regardless of the nature of the product. Emotional consideration based on health concerns does not change the nature of the game.

But yes Bonker, to try and limit access to something based on intended use, and especially based on unintended use, is pretty bizarre.