I love it! CHURCH VOWS WAR ON OBAMA 'FIGHT IN STREETS'

[Ravi]

the crux of the debate is that Government feels it has the right to tell an industry what product to sell.

Many insurers may not want to cover biurth control....something that most use for convenience...not for health purposes.

What right does the government have to tell them they must sell the service?

Birth control is considered preventative health care. All insurance providers must provide coverage for preventative health care with no copay.

 

[koshergrl]

And that's bullshit.

 

[Valerie]

The fact that the Institute of Medicine recommended that insurance plans cover all birth control for free, with no deductibles or co-pays, is definitely a big deal. The IOM recommendations are not binding, but they were requested by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to guide her determinations of essential benefits to be covered for insurance companies going forward. So the recommendation should carry a lot of weight. This is part of the free preventive services portion of the Affordable Care Act, an overlooked piece of the law. Free birth control would be a boon to family planning policy, reduce the abortion rate and provide an essential complement to public health. Sebelius praised the IOM recommendations, suggesting that she will adopt them.

Many states already mandate birth control as part of health insurance coverage, but this would federalize that standard, and extend it to poorer women by making it free.

The Guttmacher Institute has a good report on the implications of this decision:

Significantly, the IOM recommendations also include the “full range of Food and Drug Administration–approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.” The IOM considers these services essential so that “women can better avoid unwanted pregnancies and space their pregnancies to promote optimal birth outcomes.”

Making contraceptive counseling, services and supplies—including long-acting, reversible methods (the IUD and the implant), which have high up-front costs—more affordable acknowledges the reality that cost can be a daunting barrier to effective contraceptive use. The evidence strongly suggests that insurance coverage of contraceptive services and supplies without cost-sharing is a low-cost—or even cost-saving—means of helping women overcome this obstacle.

There are additional recommendations from the IOM, including an annual well-woman preventive care visit, counseling and screening for HIV and domestic violence, and early detection for reproductive cancers (like cervical cancer) and STDs. The morning after pill would be included in this package as well.

Given the lapses in time from HHS for public comment and the rest, this probably won’t become a feature of insurance plans until January 2013. Expect to hear a lot of bleating from the forced-birth lobby between now and then. This will expose them as not making principled decisions about human life, but just against women having control of their bodies and their pregnancies. It’s about control.

Institute of Medicine Recommends Free Birth Control as Part of Preventive Services Plan | FDL News Desk

 

[Uncensored2008]

Birth control is considered preventative health care. All insurance providers must provide coverage for preventative health care with no copay.

How do you think dictating the contents of a business contract by the government, will stand up in court?

Forget the assault on the first amendment, how will the administration defend the attempt to dictate the terms and conditions of contracts between third parties?

At this point, it isn't which parts of the law are unconstitutional, the question is, is there any portion of this that IS constitutional?

 

[Truthmatters]

Birth control pills have other medical uses besides birth control.

You can not strip out a course of care for political reasons.

You would have to first determine if it was being used as birth control or for its other uses.


That would be an invasion of privacy.

Hense, your fucked.

Its none of your business.

 

[Jarhead]

the crux of the debate is that Government feels it has the right to tell an industry what product to sell.

Many insurers may not want to cover biurth control....something that most use for convenience...not for health purposes.

What right does the government have to tell them they must sell the service?

Birth control is considered preventative health care. All insurance providers must provide coverage for preventative health care with no copay.

do you have proof that it is referred to as preventive healthcare by the insurance companies...or are you just offering youir personal opinion?

If someone consumes 5000 calories a day becuase they love chocolate cake, and that feeling "full" after all 5 meals a day...would you consider "weight loss pills" as preventive health care?

 

[Jarhead]

Birth control pills have other medical uses besides birth control.

You can not strip out a course of care for political reasons.

You would have to first determine if it was being used as birth control or for its other uses.


That would be an invasion of privacy.

Hense, your fucked.

Its none of your business.

grow up.

It is not invasion of privacy for a practitioner to write a script for a drug based on a diagnosis.

Many times insurance companies request what the diagnosis was before approving the script.

If the doc says "she likes to fuck" I doubt it will be seen as a medical reason....if the doc says "it helps alleviate serious menstrual discomfort", I can see it being approved.

Act like an adult and keep your mind open.

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

If Mandated Health Insurance Benefits are not permissible, than please review the following mandated benefits which would be impacted and possibly lose coverage:

Mandate Links
Please see topic specific pages (click to view):

Autism

Cancer Mandates and Exceptions

Childhood Immunizations

Clinical Trials Coverage

Colorectal Cancer Screening

Contraceptives

Dependent Coverage

Diabetes

Infertility Treatment

Mental Health Benefits

Newborn Hearing Screening

Newborn Genetic & Metabiolic Disease Screening

Mandated Health Insurance Benefits and State Laws: Overview

 

[koshergrl]

Too bad. The idea of the GOVERNMENT dictating health care is every bit as disgusting as the idea of INSURANCE COMPANIES dictating health care. You dumbasses got us into this mess, you can claw your way back out.

 

[California Girl]

If Mandated Health Insurance Benefits are not permissible, than please review the following mandated benefits which would be impacted and possibly lose coverage:

Mandate Links
Please see topic specific pages (click to view):

Autism

Cancer Mandates and Exceptions

Childhood Immunizations

Clinical Trials Coverage

Colorectal Cancer Screening

Contraceptives

Dependent Coverage

Diabetes

Infertility Treatment

Mental Health Benefits

Newborn Hearing Screening

Newborn Genetic & Metabiolic Disease Screening

Mandated Health Insurance Benefits and State Laws: Overview

There is a very straightforward way to fix the current situation - which is that President honor the promise he made to the Church.

Solution: The government should allow insurance companies to offer policies that do not include contraception. That is all the Church is asking for.

So, liberals.... is it 'freedom for me, but not for thee' or will you support the right of others to believe differently to you? Hmmm? This should not be a hard call.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does it protect a private industry from having to offer a service it may not want to offer?

Becuase that is what this deabte is REALLY about.

If an insurance company does not want to offer birth control coverage, why should the government make it do so?

Private businesses have to contribute to Social Security - I'm sure many would prefer not to. They have to pay minimum wage, they have to pay overtime under various circumstances, they have to put in place and comply with a myriad of safety measures that I'm sure many would not do were they not mandated.

So, no, the 1st amendment does in no way protect businesses from mandates they might otherwise not do.

Oh come on NYCarbineer...you are smarter than that...or maybe you dont think I am as smart as I am.....

What you described are rules and regulations ALL businesss of ALL industries must comply with to operate in the US...

My question is different..

Should the federal government decide that an industry MUST offer a service it does not want to offer?

For example....can the federal government force ALL arilines to fly to Otmawah Iowa if they want the right to fly in US air space?

I'm going to ignore that fact that you are ignoring my points because you can't refute them and ask this:

Has government required electric utilities to provide electricity to everyone in a given area? Whether the utility wanted to or not?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 1st amendment does not exempt businesses being run by religious people from the laws that apply to all businesses,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice, it doesn't say, Congress shall make no law except for when a business is involved?

Your war on the first amendment is doomed to failure. You bit off WAY more than you can chew this time.

or to all comparable businesses not claiming a religious mantle.

The federal government may not dictate religious matters. The attempt to do so violates the first amendment.

Yes, the war is actually against the first amendment, and the rest of the bill of rights. I understand that the left is at war against liberty, seeking authoritarianism. But you've overestimated your power.

Obama is done, nothing he does can save him. This attack will dominate the airwaves and every church pulpit from now until November.

It was a stupid, stupid move - but Obama is a stupid, stupid man.

This requirement is already in place in 28 states. Why hasn't it been declared unconstitutional?

 

[koshergrl]

Who knows. Again, I don't think people realized it was in place. They do now. And that's not a valid argument that it's constitutional, incidentally. It's a logical fallacy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who knows. Again, I don't think people realized it was in place. They do now. And that's not a valid argument that it's constitutional, incidentally. It's a logical fallacy.

You've already stated at least twice that you agree that the 1st amendment doesn't give churches the right to violate applicable business laws when they're running a business,

so you've personally endorsed its constitutionality.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, link that.

 

[Jarhead]

Private businesses have to contribute to Social Security - I'm sure many would prefer not to. They have to pay minimum wage, they have to pay overtime under various circumstances, they have to put in place and comply with a myriad of safety measures that I'm sure many would not do were they not mandated.

So, no, the 1st amendment does in no way protect businesses from mandates they might otherwise not do.

Oh come on NYCarbineer...you are smarter than that...or maybe you dont think I am as smart as I am.....

What you described are rules and regulations ALL businesss of ALL industries must comply with to operate in the US...

My question is different..

Should the federal government decide that an industry MUST offer a service it does not want to offer?

For example....can the federal government force ALL arilines to fly to Otmawah Iowa if they want the right to fly in US air space?

I'm going to ignore that fact that you are ignoring my points because you can't refute them and ask this:

Has government required electric utilities to provide electricity to everyone in a given area? Whether the utility wanted to or not?

it was a criteria to allow then to have the monopoly.....it was a decision the industry as a whole agreed upon.

The telecommunications industry disagreed and therfore competiton was allowed...and you saw what happened.

I did not ignore your points...I showed you how they are not refutable...they are accurate and true...but applied to ALL businesses...not just one business....so it is different.

I like an honest debate...and willing to debate this with you.......but please, keep it honest.

 

[Ravi]

the crux of the debate is that Government feels it has the right to tell an industry what product to sell.

Many insurers may not want to cover biurth control....something that most use for convenience...not for health purposes.

What right does the government have to tell them they must sell the service?

Birth control is considered preventative health care. All insurance providers must provide coverage for preventative health care with no copay.

do you have proof that it is referred to as preventive healthcare by the insurance companies...or are you just offering youir personal opinion?

If someone consumes 5000 calories a day becuase they love chocolate cake, and that feeling "full" after all 5 meals a day...would you consider "weight loss pills" as preventive health care?

It's considered preventative by the medical community. I imagine it is by the insurance industry as well since the vast majority now cover birth control, just not without a copay.

Here are what is currently considered preventative care (or currently before birth control was added to the list):

Preventive Care: What's Covered?

Depending on the health plan type and such factors as your age, preventive care is expected to include such services as:

Blood pressure, diabetes, and cholesterol tests
Cancer screenings
Counseling on smoking cessation, weight loss, healthy eating, depression treatments, and reduction of alcohol use
Vaccines for measles, polio, meningitis, and HPV (human papilloma virus)
Shots for flu and pneumonia prevention
Screening, vaccines, and counseling for healthy pregnancies
Well-baby and well-child visits up to the age of 21, as well as vision and hearing, developmental assessments, and body mass index (BMI) screenings for obesity
Mammograms for women over age 40
Pap smears for cervical cancer prevention
Colon cancer screening tests for adults over age 50
New Insurance Rules: Free Preventive Health Care

Here is why birth control was added:

Preventing unwanted pregnancies is only one goal of the new requirement. Contraception can help make a woman's next pregnancy healthier by spacing births far enough apart, generally 18 months to two years. Research links closely spaced births to a risk of such problems as prematurity, low birth weight, even autism. Research has shown that even modest copays for medical care can discourage use.

Obama Administration: Health Insurers Must Cover Birth Control With No Copays (this is an ap article reprinted on huffpo, so no huffpo meltdowns allowed)

 

[koshergrl]

Research also links birth control and abortion to cancer.

It's just propaganda. Swallow it whole.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This requirement is already in place in 28 states. Why hasn't it been declared unconstitutional?

The mandate that religious organizations offer birth control is in place in zero states.

{(c) This section shall not apply to an individual policy of accident and sickness insurance delivered, issued or renewed pursuant to section 108 or any group blanket policy of accident and sickness insurance delivered, issued or renewed pursuant to section 110 if that policy is purchased by an employer that is a church or qualified church-controlled organization, as those terms are defined in 26 U.S.C. section 3121(w)(3)(A) and (B).}

Contraceptive Coverage and Massachusetts Law - Boston.com

I'm not going to say you're lying, but the hate site that does your thinking is lying.

 

[koshergrl]

AND research also shows that women who have babies at a young age enjoy much better reproductive health.

That's not something the abortionists and eugenecists want to get around, though, lol...