And down the slippery slope we continue to go

[romad]

White House defends contraception rules as criticisms mount - Yahoo! News

Now envision a fully established Nationalized health care program.

[Seahawk]

This was so stupid and unnecessary a position to take it really leads one to ask why they would be so intentionally offensive?

Make all the intellectual engagement you want: this was stupid.

[island911]

[Seahawk]

Amazing stuff, even for lazy Americans: Read the links here

Obama Aides Seek To Calm Storm Over Contraceptive Rule - Kaiser Health News

Who is in charge?

And I am not religious and don't go to church, yet I find this "new rule" an affront.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

This was so stupid and unnecessary a position to take it really leads one to ask why they would be so intentionally offensive?

Make all the intellectual engagement you want: this was stupid.

It makes no sense if getting re-elected is the goal. OTOH if Chaos is the goal, it is perfect.

[foxpaws]

Seahawk - Churches are still exempt- just large entities that are 'owned' by religious groups - which employ people who aren't of the same faith. A large catholic hospital employees many people, of many different faiths - and by restricting health care insurance (in this case contraceptives) to those who have no ties to the catholic church is where the argument lies.

I have heard that the administration might use what the law does in Hawaii - which allows religious employers to enroll workers in a 'non-contraceptive' plan with a reduced premium, and then allow employees who want contraception to pay for the contraceptive coverage out of their own pockets directly to the insurer.

I think that is a good work-around for the problem - hopefully that will be the compromise that they end up using.

[cairns]

Foxy one in six patients in America are at a Catholic hospital. One in three are at a religiously backed hospital.

Whatever happened to separation of church and state? This is abhorrent and you ought to admit it.

[szyzygy]

Is viagra still covered?!?!?!?!?

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

I have heard that the administration might use what the law does in Hawaii - which allows religious employers to enroll workers in a 'non-contraceptive' plan with a reduced premium, and then allow employees who want contraception to pay for the contraceptive coverage out of their own pockets directly to the insurer.

They are winging it.

...perhaps by allowing some employers to make side insurance plans available that are not directly paid for by the institutions. But White House officials insisted the president would not back down from his decision last month that employees at institutions affiliated with religious organizations receive access to contraceptives

Federal government involvement directly in health care will be, well, like the VA, SS, Medicare, tax laws...

And I agree...let the States work it out, individually.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by cairns

Foxy one in six patients in America are at a Catholic hospital. One in three are at a religiously backed hospital.

Whatever happened to separation of church and state? This is abhorrent and you ought to admit it.

It isn't about the patients - it is about the employees - and their opportunity to get employer provide health insurance benefits.

If you are employed at a catholic hospital, and you use contraceptives - they may not be paid for by the hospital's health insurance. However, that sets a precedent - because contraceptives are considered a 'drug', and then the employer is using 'prejudice' against a type of drug.

And the hospitals are not 'church' - they are not classified as a church. They either make a profit, or have non-profit status, but the tax law does not exempt them like a church. Churches own lots of things - and those things are not tax exempt like the church is. So, in some ways - as is often the case - the church wants its cake - and eat it to. The hospital is a business, but they want you to see it as a religious institution - it isn't.

Viagra would still be covered szyzygy - no fear - your little blue pills can continue to come in the mail every other month

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

They are winging it.

...perhaps by allowing some employers to make side insurance plans available that are not directly paid for by the institutions. But White House officials insisted the president would not back down from his decision last month that employees at institutions affiliated with religious organizations receive access to contraceptives

Federal government involvement directly in health care will be, well, like the VA, SS, Medicare, tax laws...

And I agree...let the States work it out, individually.

The Feds are already in your health care plan - a lot - they have all sort of things they regulate - one of them specifically was making health care plans cover contraceptives in the first place (the very famous case of Viagra is covered - why aren't my birth control pills).

[szyzygy]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Viagra would still be covered szyzygy - no fear - your little blue pills can continue to come in the mail every other month

thank goodness! I wouldn't be able to enjoy the miracle of procreation if I didn't get my magic little pills! We need as many little ones as we can get to 1) be made 2) to grow up and share the tax burden and support old people who retire at 65 an then live another 30 years. Even though life expectancy is no longer 65, it's in the 70's now.

Thanks, fellow US taxpayers!

[red-beard]

The real BS here is that these "benefits" are provided under "preventative care".

Contraception is not preventative care. Preganancy is not a disease.

And don't give me the "Viagra" argument. That is treating a disease.

[island911]

But according to Obama pregnancy is a punishment.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

This was so stupid and unnecessary a position to take it really leads one to ask why they would be so intentionally offensive?

Make all the intellectual engagement you want: this was stupid.

it polls quite well

[szyzygy]

Originally Posted by red-beard

And don't give me the "Viagra" argument. That is treating a disease.

you don't need to be able to get a hard-on to live.

Hard-ons are fun, but you can live without them.

[szyzygy]

If not being able to get a hard-on is a disease that warrants the rest of us taxpayers paying for the pills, then so is a promiscuous slut who can't keep her panties on and needs birth control pills.

[dipso]

When the catholic church can stop raping young boys, we will listen to what they have to say.
Until then STFU.
Grown men in dresses, who have sex with young boys are not to be taken seriously.

[s_wilwerding]

What the government needs to do is go to contraceptive companies and pharmacies and work out a deal/subsidize it so that anyone can get contraceptives for $5 a month (a la many Walmart prescriptions now). That way, if your insurance doesn't cover it, I think you can still pony up $5 a month.

I have a difficult time believing that the marginal cost of producing a month's worth of pills isn't already $5 or less, so I should think that the government could work out a good deal for little cost. Heck, even if they have to spend millions, it's worth it vs. what they would otherwise spend the money on.

[Tobra]

So this part of it is just a little bit unconstitutional I guess. The Secretary of HHS is going to have more power than Congress, that will work out well