obama caves again

[Quantum Windbag]

The insurers don't have a problem with the ruling because they know they will be able to get the $3 billion it will cost by raising premiums.

NOt true, since birth control is revenue nuetral. When the Federal Government added it to their plans a few years back, it was.

The simple fact is that, when the federal government added it to their plans, not plan, people were able to opt in, or refuse, based on their personal choice. Federal employees generally have a higher standard of living that the public, tend to be educated, and are not a representative sample of the public. A better case study would be Hawaii, which is the only state to actually require all employers to provide contraceptive coverage on their insurance. The best that can be said about that is that it did not appear to cause an increase in costs.

http://hawaii.gov/dcca/ins/reports/2001_contraceptive_report.pdf

The LA times actually has an interesting OpEd about Obama and his dream that things are free.

Making everyone in a pool carry coverage whether they need it or not spreads the cost, saving money for those who really do need it and who'd choose to carry it if it were merely optional. But costs faced by the insurer are the same -- and when the care is provided with no out-of-pocket costs, the insurer's costs are likely to go up because more people will use it. Such is likely to be the case with contraception.
The administration's bet is that the cost of all those birth-control and morning-after pills, among other forms of contraception, will be more than offset by a reduction in other healthcare costs. A report by the Institutes of Medicine backs up the White House; it found that contraceptive use would save $19.3 billion a year -- far more than the estimated $5 billion annual cost of unintended pregnancies.
But whether this particular mandate produces that kind of result is something only time will tell. Although 28 states require insurers to cover contraception, the new federal rules are the first to require that contraceptives be available at no cost. The only certain result is that more women will get prescriptions filled for contraceptives. There will be a short-term cost to that, unquestionably; the administration's hope is that there will be long-term savings.

The White House wishes away the cost of contraception coverage - latimes.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do I think women use their pills to clean? Not really.

Do I think there are women who get the pills and end up not taking them? I know there are, I actually met one.

I'm sure there are.

I knew a gal once who stopped taking her pills because her jerkwad boyfriend wasn't making good on her promises to marry her. An abortion later, she still didn't figure it out.

But you know what, if we apply that standard, insurance companies could cut people who fail to lose weight, fail to stop smoking, fail to stop drinking... why not?

Gee, I don't know, could it be because the fucking shit stain law known as Obamacare makes it illegal to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions?

Idiot.

 

[dblack]

It's not 'special interest' to defend the First Amendment Rights. It's not granting them anything other than a Right as provided by the Constitution. If you don't like the Constitution, fine. Have that debate... but right now, it is what it is and we have that right and that right is under attack from our own damned government. And they are not allowed to do that... it's unConstitutional.

This is why it's important to actually understand the first amendment. It's not meant to grant exemptions to religions that the rest of us can't exercise. It's not the Constitution I have issues with, but rather the boneheaded interpretation that it allows religions to pick and choose what laws they follow.

 

[Foxfyre]

personally, i find it difficult to equate birth control with preventive health care.

i guess i'm stupid since i see this as a first amendment issue and not a moral one

i'll endeavor to persevere, nonetheless

That's fine, but I would like to be able to have sex with my husband for fun and not just to have kids. Not only would MY health suffer if I got pregnant every time, but so would the health of my kids.

But hey, I've never been a perfect Catholic.

And I'm kind of mystified at your old fashioned attitude.

I'll get over it, though.

i don't care who does or doesn't use birth control.

i've got a teensy problem with the govt forcing churches to supply it against their beliefs.

i guess i'm old fashioned that way.

Exactly.

Use birth control or not. I don't care. But if you don't and produce children, please take the responsibility to feed, clothe, house, educate, and insure them and don't expect other people to do that for you. And wait to have sex until you can.

I've got a HUGE problem with the federal government forcing anybody, employers, insurance companies, or whatever, to furnish anything to anybody else regardless of their beliefs.

And for those who don't have moral scruples against contraceptives, which is most of us, I am definitely old fashioned in believing that if you can't afford to buy a package of condoms at Wal-greens, you should wait to have sex until you can. I am definitely old fashioned in that I believe we all should be taking responsibility for ourselves and as much as possible paying our way for what we need rather than looking to government to provide it for us.

 

[dblack]

I've got a HUGE problem with the federal government forcing anybody, employers, insurance companies, or whatever, to furnish anything to anybody else regardless of their beliefs.

THAT is the salient point that all the preoccupation with the religion issue is clouding over. This law is indeed unconstitutional, but it's a violation of the ninth amendment, not the first. In other words, taken as it is written and intended, the Constitution protects all of us from this kind of mandate - not just religions.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not 'special interest' to defend the First Amendment Rights. It's not granting them anything other than a Right as provided by the Constitution. If you don't like the Constitution, fine. Have that debate... but right now, it is what it is and we have that right and that right is under attack from our own damned government. And they are not allowed to do that... it's unConstitutional.

This is why it's important to actually understand the first amendment. It's not meant to grant exemptions to religions that the rest of us can't exercise. It's not the Constitution I have issues with, but rather the boneheaded interpretation that it allows religions to pick and choose what laws they follow.

But that is exactly what the Founders intended. They knew the Puritans, for instance, wanted a society that followed Puritan ethics, morals, and restrictions. They knew that the Puritans, however, were a small minority and the next province over would want a very different sort of society, and the next would choose something altogether different again. So the Constitution was structured to secure our rights on the principle that the Federal government would then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have.

It is the ONLY government in the world that recognixzes that the people possess God given unalienable rights that government would protect and defend but the people would then govern themselves without dictate of a monarch, dictator, or other authoritarian form of government. If the government can dictate the laws, apart from those necessary to secure our rights and do the Constitutionally necessary functions of government, then there are no unalienable rights, there is no freedom, and there is no self governance.

Our Constitution is what defines American exceptionalism. And it must be nurtured and defended or we lose that exceptionalism which has made us the greatest nation the world has ever known.

Based on your next post we are probably actually basically arguing on the same side of the fence here though.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've got a HUGE problem with the federal government forcing anybody, employers, insurance companies, or whatever, to furnish anything to anybody else regardless of their beliefs.

THAT is the salient point that all the preoccupation with the religion issue is clouding over. This law is indeed unconstitutional, but it's a violation of the ninth amendment, not the first. In other words, taken as it is written and intended, the Constitution protects all of us from this kind of mandate - not just religions.

I tend to agree with this. It DID violate First Amendment considerations by government meddling in the affairs of the Church and in effect altering their 'free exercise' of religious belief, but most of my personal outrage was at the whole idea of the government presuming to tell anybody they have to provide contraceptives or any other product to anybody whether they want to or not.

That is just one small step away from the government mandating that some people MUST use contraceptives or be sterilized and/or it sets a precedent and opens the door for many more similar mandates.

Sometimes the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. But it is also a logical fallacy to say there is no such thing as a slippery slope.

 

[California Girl]

I've got a HUGE problem with the federal government forcing anybody, employers, insurance companies, or whatever, to furnish anything to anybody else regardless of their beliefs.

THAT is the salient point that all the preoccupation with the religion issue is clouding over. This law is indeed unconstitutional, but it's a violation of the ninth amendment, not the first. In other words, taken as it is written and intended, the Constitution protects all of us from this kind of mandate - not just religions.

Then it is in breach of both, they are not mutually exclusive. And, currently, the issue at hand - first up to bat as it were... is the religious freedom one. That freedom does not come from the Government so it cannot be defined by the Government. By excluding faith based charities from the exemption, they are, in fact, attempting to define what constitutes 'religious freedom'. They cannot do that. They do not have the power. 'inalienable rights', 'endowed by our creator' - no mention of Government in there.

It is our right and we will have it.

 

[dblack]

I've got a HUGE problem with the federal government forcing anybody, employers, insurance companies, or whatever, to furnish anything to anybody else regardless of their beliefs.

THAT is the salient point that all the preoccupation with the religion issue is clouding over. This law is indeed unconstitutional, but it's a violation of the ninth amendment, not the first. In other words, taken as it is written and intended, the Constitution protects all of us from this kind of mandate - not just religions.

I tend to agree with this. It DID violate First Amendment considerations by government meddling in the affairs of the Church and in effect altering their 'free exercise' of religious belief, but most of my personal outrage was at the whole idea of the government presuming to tell anybody they have to provide contraceptives or any other product to anybody whether they want to or not.

That is just one small step away from the government mandating that some people MUST use contraceptives or be sterilized and/or it sets a precedent and opens the door for many more similar mandates.

Sometimes the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. But it is also a logical fallacy to say there is no such thing as a slippery slope.

Doesn't need to get any slipperier in my view. It's bad enough as it is. No sane reading of the history and intent of the commerce clause could construe it to support the kind of power our regulatory agencies currently wield.

 

[Liability]

I've got a HUGE problem with the federal government forcing anybody, employers, insurance companies, or whatever, to furnish anything to anybody else regardless of their beliefs.

THAT is the salient point that all the preoccupation with the religion issue is clouding over. This law is indeed unconstitutional, but it's a violation of the ninth amendment, not the first. In other words, taken as it is written and intended, the Constitution protects all of us from this kind of mandate - not just religions.

Then it is in breach of both, they are not mutually exclusive. And, currently, the issue at hand - first up to bat as it were... is the religious freedom one. That freedom does not come from the Government so it cannot be defined by the Government. By excluding faith based charities from the exemption, they are, in fact, attempting to define what constitutes 'religious freedom'. They cannot do that. They do not have the power. 'inalienable rights', 'endowed by our creator' - no mention of Government in there.

It is our right and we will have it.

It is our right and we will have it.


Major props.

This is the message the deaf Administration is not properly receiving.

How much clearer we may have to be is not yet certain.

But the answer to ObamaCare is clear:

We, the People, are going to just say "no!"

 

[California Girl]

I've got a HUGE problem with the federal government forcing anybody, employers, insurance companies, or whatever, to furnish anything to anybody else regardless of their beliefs.

THAT is the salient point that all the preoccupation with the religion issue is clouding over. This law is indeed unconstitutional, but it's a violation of the ninth amendment, not the first. In other words, taken as it is written and intended, the Constitution protects all of us from this kind of mandate - not just religions.

I tend to agree with this. It DID violate First Amendment considerations by government meddling in the affairs of the Church and in effect altering their 'free exercise' of religious belief, but most of my personal outrage was at the whole idea of the government presuming to tell anybody they have to provide contraceptives or any other product to anybody whether they want to or not.

That is just one small step away from the government mandating that some people MUST use contraceptives or be sterilized and/or it sets a precedent and opens the door for many more similar mandates.

Sometimes the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. But it is also a logical fallacy to say there is no such thing as a slippery slope.

It is the law of unintended consequences. If we don't stop it somewhere, our country will be unrecognizable as an 'exceptional nation'.... our forefathers will have fought and died, for nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And your "free market capitalism" has resulted in a population who lives not as long and not as healthy as industrialized western nations with national heath care? That's a failure as a society.

Bullshit.

That's you, son. Compare the stats with the industrialized nations and we clearly pay more for poorer lives and fewer years. You know it, I know it.

 

[California Girl]

And your "free market capitalism" has resulted in a population who lives not as long and not as healthy as industrialized western nations with national heath care? That's a failure as a society.

Bullshit.

That's you, son. Compare the stats with the industrialized nations and we clearly pay more for poorer lives and fewer years. You know it, I know it.

So you're saying we should throw away the documents that gave us freedom, and kept our own government at bay because individuals can't be trusted to take care of themselves?

 

[JakeStarkey]

And a comparison of the stats show it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Bullshit.

That's you, son. Compare the stats with the industrialized nations and we clearly pay more for poorer lives and fewer years. You know it, I know it.

So you're saying we should throw away the documents that gave us freedom, and kept our own government at bay because individuals can't be trusted to take care of themselves?

Not only that, but we live longer than does ANY other nation with as widely diverse a population ethnically, racially, and other mixed demographics. And we were doing as well or better than ALL before the government started meddling with healthcare that has run the costs out of sight. Those parts of the healthcare system that the government now controls are doing no better in longegivity because of it and it is absurd to think that forcing everybody else into government controlled programs would have any better effect.

Those who demand more and more government intervention no doubt see Obama as their messiah, savior, be all to end all strife and want from the Earth, etc. etc. etc. I suppose they have been conditioned and/or brainwashed into thinking they need a king.

I can only hope that there are still enough of us who prefer freedom to keep them at bay. Maybe the current debate over contraceptives will be the wake up call?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not 'special interest' to defend the First Amendment Rights. It's not granting them anything other than a Right as provided by the Constitution. If you don't like the Constitution, fine. Have that debate... but right now, it is what it is and we have that right and that right is under attack from our own damned government. And they are not allowed to do that... it's unConstitutional.

This is why it's important to actually understand the first amendment. It's not meant to grant exemptions to religions that the rest of us can't exercise. It's not the Constitution I have issues with, but rather the boneheaded interpretation that it allows religions to pick and choose what laws they follow.

Quite true, it is actually designed to prevent the government from writing any law that interferes with any religion. The government does not have the power to tell Scientology that it cannot teach people about engrams and that by treating them you can rid yourself of illness, nor does it have the right to force insurers to pay for treatments that involve Scientology. As long as Obamacare exists the government will be forcing its way into the conscious of every American. I would love to see it tossed out, and the government forced to acknowledge that there are things it cannot do, but that is going to take a decisive victory in the courts, or an even more decisive epiphany of American voters. Until then I will use the tools that the government cannot ignore to chip away at everything it does, and the one thing that everyone understands is that the government cannot interfere with religion. Even the idiots that want to say this is not about religion understand this, which is why they are lying to you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And your "free market capitalism" has resulted in a population who lives not as long and not as healthy as industrialized western nations with national heath care? That's a failure as a society.

Bullshit.

That's you, son. Compare the stats with the industrialized nations and we clearly pay more for poorer lives and fewer years. You know it, I know it.

Want to bet on that?

 

[JoeB131]

Do I think women use their pills to clean? Not really.

Do I think there are women who get the pills and end up not taking them? I know there are, I actually met one.

I'm sure there are.

I knew a gal once who stopped taking her pills because her jerkwad boyfriend wasn't making good on her promises to marry her. An abortion later, she still didn't figure it out.

But you know what, if we apply that standard, insurance companies could cut people who fail to lose weight, fail to stop smoking, fail to stop drinking... why not?

Gee, I don't know, could it be because the fucking shit stain law known as Obamacare makes it illegal to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions?

Idiot.

You mean actually having laws that are HUMANE?

Heaven forbid.

You really allowing kids to die of cancer because it was a pre-existing condition- which is what the insurance companies were doing before the AHA - was a good thing? Really?

Frankly, instead of being wrapped around the axle about the 300 in birth control pills, you should be wrapped around the axle that Hanaway, the CEO of Cigna who let Natalie Sarkisyan die becasue they wouldn't pay for a liver transplant, got a 73 million dollar severance package for pulling that kind of crap.

 

[JoeB131]

Bullshit.

That's you, son. Compare the stats with the industrialized nations and we clearly pay more for poorer lives and fewer years. You know it, I know it.

Want to bet on that?

Not that I like defending Jake, but he's absolutely right.

The United States ranks 35th in life expectency...

Life Expectancy At Birth, Total years statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

Japan is at the top...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sure there are.

I knew a gal once who stopped taking her pills because her jerkwad boyfriend wasn't making good on her promises to marry her. An abortion later, she still didn't figure it out.

But you know what, if we apply that standard, insurance companies could cut people who fail to lose weight, fail to stop smoking, fail to stop drinking... why not?

Gee, I don't know, could it be because the fucking shit stain law known as Obamacare makes it illegal to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions?

Idiot.

You mean actually having laws that are HUMANE?

Heaven forbid.

You really allowing kids to die of cancer because it was a pre-existing condition- which is what the insurance companies were doing before the AHA - was a good thing? Really?

Frankly, instead of being wrapped around the axle about the 300 in birth control pills, you should be wrapped around the axle that Hanaway, the CEO of Cigna who let Natalie Sarkisyan die becasue they wouldn't pay for a liver transplant, got a 73 million dollar severance package for pulling that kind of crap.

Laws are not supposed to be humane, they are supposed to be just. PETA just tried to sue Sea World for slavery because they use killer whales and dolphins in their shows. They think that is humane, doesn't make it any less stupid.

As for Natalie, she had recurrent leukemia, multiple organ failure, and a less than 40% chance of surviving 6 months if she had gotten a transplant. Most doctors interviewed back then would have been reluctant to perform the operation even if it had been approved. Frankly, it made more sense to skip her and give the liver to someone who would live longer.

For the record, under the IPAB guidelines in Obamacare Natalie would not have gotten approved for a transplant either. Since you just called Obamacare a humane law I guess that means not giving her the liver was the humane thing to do.

To be frank, I agree with you. It is both the humane and just thing to do not to waste precious resources and a liver on someone who is not even going to live a year. If, on the other hand, her parents wanted to pay for it out of their own pocket, go for it. That is actually what Obama said when he first started talking about a public option, so I guess that means I agree with him also.