Religious freedom and contraception

[Neally]

My premiums have gone down while my coverage has expanded. Looks like your insurance company is suffering from mismanagement.

Something for nothing. Cool!

You are absolutely right. Now would you care to show that overall, costs go up specifically because of adding contraception.

I imagine in my case it would, since I am a single gay male, I would never utilize the additional coverage, but that is seriously overshadowed by all of the heterosexuals on the same plan that don't wish to be breeders (at least not at the moment).

And of course without it being "free" through the insurance plan they would be forced into a household of offspring, as would their kids and on down the line. Obamacare has just saved the planet from over population!

 

[ponderingturtle]

• Scientology believes that psychology is immoral.
• Jehovah Witnesses believe blood transfusions are immoral.
• Many faiths believe modern medicine is immoral.
• Many business owners believe that HIV medicine is immoral.

When it comes to health it's not up to the govt to create a patchwork of what can and cannot be covered under an employers health care to accommodate religion.

That's the greater good.

The catholic church believes it is wrong to save a womans life with an abortion. So they have to aid this ultimate evil by transferring them to another hospital. In the name of religious freedom why not let them let the women die?

 

[RandFan]

Something for nothing. Cool!

Straw man. No one has made that argument. The link I provided explained how costs would go down. Of course you refuse to consider arguments counter to your world view so I guess that only leaves straw men.

 

[Neally]

Straw man. No one has made that argument.

Tony in fact said that he got more for less. Something for nothing!

The link I provided explained how costs would go down. Of course you refuse to consider arguments counter to your world view so I guess that only leaves straw men.

Your link does nothing but make claims, and those claims don't even take into account the new CBO figures that bump the cost from $940 billion to $1.76 trillion. My costs went up just like everyone else who was on my same plan that was forced into paying for coverage they didn't want or need.

 

[Tony]

Tony in fact said that he got more for less. Something for nothing!

No, you're just getting screwed.

 

[RandFan]

Tony in fact said that he got more for less. Something for nothing!

No. There are explanations for the premium to go down. You are just asserting that is not possible.

Your link does nothing but make claims...

They are called arguments, not just claims. The CBO makes the case that it will save money over the next decade (using the old figures).

...and those claims don't even take into account the new CBO figures that bump the cost from $940 billion to $1.76 trillion. My costs went up just like everyone else who was on my same plan that was forced into paying for coverage they didn't want or need.

A.) The new CBO figures are for short term changes (savings will be realized over the long term. B.) Some plans could go down with the new program.

 

[johnny karate]

...my health insurance premiums went up as a direct result of Obamacare.

No, they didn't.

 

[Neally]

No, you're just getting screwed.

Very true. Obamacare has forced my insurance company to add coverages for things I don't want or need. Obamacare has indeed screwed me.

B.) Some plans could go down with the new program.

And others, like mine go up. What a great piece of legislation.

Supposedly the Canadian system is cheaper with better outcomes. Supposedly a proven track record. That should have been the model to sell the public on. Instead we end up with this monstrosity and the loyal followers can do nothing but praise the great accomplishment.

No, they didn't.

Yes they did. Did you even bother reading the piece that you linked to, or were you just so excited to see something that might support your hero, that you only glanced at it?

...the fact that the law caused any increase at all cast more doubt on Obama’s promise that the law “could save families $2,500 in the coming years.” We’ve been calling that claim into question for several years now. The plain fact is that — so far — the law has caused an increase in premiums, though not so large an increase as some Republicans claim.

The law may have had a “modest” impact on premiums, but it’s causing them to go up – not down, as the Obama administration has claimed it would.

Anyway, thanks for the cite that confirms what I said.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, they didn't.

Your own source claims that the law has increased premiums. Congratulations on your own-goal.

There are two primary points made by that reference in defense of Obamacare. The first is that the majority of the increase is part of the general trend of increasing health care costs, and not the result of the law. But that doesn't mean that the law didn't increase costs, and your source explicitly claims that it did.

The second point is that "the increase caused by the law is a result of the increased benefits it requires". In other words, they are implying that the increased costs are a worthwhile tradeoff for better coverage. But whether or not that's true, it still matches Neally's claim that mandated coverage has driven up costs.

 

[Tony]

Very true. Obamacare has forced my insurance company to add coverages for things I don't want or need. Obamacare has indeed screwed me.

Naw, it is your insurance company screwing you. But I'm sure you will continue to blame the mean black president.

 

[RandFan]

And others, like mine go up. What a great piece of legislation.

Given that it will ultimately slow the rate of growth it is a price that we need to pay. And, for the first time people who couldn't get insurance are getting it. That's a very good thing.

Did you even bother reading the piece...

Yes. At most the increase due to the law was "modest".

The law may have had a “modest” impact on premiums...

It should be noted that Obama is promising to slow the rate of growth of premiums or health care spending, so costs would still rise, but not by as much.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes they did. Did you even bother reading the piece that you linked to, or were you just so excited to see something that might support your hero, that you only glanced at it?

Anyway, thanks for the cite that confirms what I said.

Oops...

Health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans jumped a startling 9 percent from 2010 to 2011, and Republicans have blamed the federal health care law. But they exaggerate. The law — the bulk of which has yet to be implemented — has caused only about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in premiums, according to several independent experts. The rest of the 9 percent rise is due to rising health care costs, as usual.

If the point still eludes you, let's engage in a thought exercise.

Timmy is given $20 from his mother to spend on school supplies.

Timmy spends $15 on comic books and candy, and $5 on school supplies.

Timmy tells his mother he no longer has any money as a direct result of spending it on school supplies.

Is Timmy being honest?

 

[johnny karate]

Your own source claims that the law has increased premiums. Congratulations on your own-goal.

There are two primary points made by that reference in defense of Obamacare. The first is that the majority of the increase is part of the general trend of increasing health care costs, and not the result of the law. But that doesn't mean that the law didn't increase costs, and your source explicitly claims that it did.

The second point is that "the increase caused by the law is a result of the increased benefits it requires". In other words, they are implying that the increased costs are a worthwhile tradeoff for better coverage. But whether or not that's true, it still matches Neally's claim that mandated coverage has driven up costs.

Neally's claim that I challenged was "my health insurance premiums went up as a direct result of Obamacare".

In reality, his health insurance premiums went up by and large because of rising health care costs. Only a fraction of that increase can be attributed to Obamacare.

For some reason, Neally left out the cause behind the bulk of the increase, and left the reader with the distinct impression that Obamacare was solely responsible.

I'm sure that was just an oversight on his part, and wasn't at all willful partisan dishonesty.

 

[RandFan]

source

The overall cost appears just a little higher -- about $5 billion per year for the next decade -- and as Ezra Klein noted, the CBO analysis "doesn't include the Medicare cuts, or many of the tax increases, that pay for the legislation."

Like it or not, the CBO report still shows the Affordable Care Act doing what it's supposed to do, while cutting the deficit, just as proponents argued during the debate in 2009 and 2010. The arguments Democrats made at the time are bolstered, not undermined, by the new data. Indeed, as Jonathan Cohn noted, "The real news of the CBO estimate is that, according to its models, health care reform is going to save even more taxpayer dollars than previously thought."
In other words, Republicans and their allies are pointing to a CBO analysis that, if read carefully, shows that Republicans and their allies are wrong.

If you like the CBO report for increases you won't like it for savings I'm guessing.

 

[Tony]

Let's not forget that Obamacare no longer lets insurance companies get away with fraud by pocketing large percentages of the money paid to premiums and only spending a small percentage on actual coverage (ya know, what customers pay for).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/

That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.

I suspect that Neally's rising costs have more to do with his insurance company raising premiums so they can keep fattening their wallets instead of taking a hit by having to do the job people pay them for.

 

[Ziggurat]

Let's not forget that Obamacare no longer lets insurance companies get away with fraud by pocketing large percentages of the money paid to premiums and only spending a small percentage on actual coverage (ya know, what customers pay for).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/

That article didn't actually mention what percentage most insurance companies currently spend on medical care. That seems a rather... curious omission, considering that it's completely central to the entire thesis of the article. Is the author trying to hide an inconvenient fact? Or is he simply incompetent?

 

[xjx388]

• Scientology believes that psychology is immoral.
• Jehovah Witnesses believe blood transfusions are immoral.
• Many faiths believe modern medicine is immoral.
• Many business owners believe that HIV medicine is immoral.

When it comes to health it's not up to the govt to create a patchwork of what can and cannot be covered under an employers health care to accommodate religion.

That's the greater good.

Contraception is not the same thing as mental health.
Contraception is not the same thing as blood transfusions.
Contraception is not the same thing as HIV medicine.

Putting aside other uses for it (which would be covered by any insurance plan), contraception is used so that you can have sex without worrying about getting pregnant. Pregnancy is not an illness. It's the natural outcome of sexual activity. There is no pressing health need for contraception. There is no issue public concern with people getting pregnant. It's not really a health issue in the same way that blood transfusions and mental health are health issues. You won't die if you don't have sex. If you don't want to get pregnant but still want to have sex then you can buy your own contraception. It's cheap and in many places you can get it for free.

So again, where is the pressing public need for contraception?

 

[Neally]

Naw, it is your insurance company screwing you. But I'm sure you will continue to blame the mean black president.

But of course when the facts contradict, pull the race card.

Oops...

Oops yourself. You disputed that my premiums went up as a result of Obamacare. They have. Your cite confirmed it. My policy and checking account has confirmed it. The % amount that some GOP have claimed, which what you are trying to back peddle with now, has nothing to do with it.

Neally's claim that I challenged was "my health insurance premiums went up as a direct result of Obamacare".

In reality, his health insurance premiums went up by and large because of rising health care costs. Only a fraction of that increase can be attributed to Obamacare.

Back peddle again. I plainly said that the premiums went up due to additional coverage I was forced to pay for.

For some reason, Neally left out the cause behind the bulk of the increase, and left the reader with the distinct impression that Obamacare was solely responsible.

Obamacare was solely responsible for the premium increase resulting from the additional coverage that was mandated. Oh and the rest of the increase, yeah, Obamacare didn't remedy that either, but color me a bit skeptical, just like your cite, that I'll eventually, one day be saving $2,500 per year.

I suspect that Neally's rising costs have more to do with his insurance company raising premiums so they can keep fattening their wallets instead of taking a hit by having to do the job people pay them for.

Um no, they are forced to add stuff to my policy that I don't want or need. Stuff isn't free you know, well maybe in the case of your coverage, since you get more coverage at a less cost, or so you claim.

 

[Ziggurat]

So again, where is the pressing public need for contraception?

It's to stop those evil Republicans from stealing their ladyparts. Or something.

If Republicans were truly Machiavellian, they'd offer to pay for birth control for any Democrat who asked.

 

[RandFan]

Contraception is not the same thing as mental health.
Contraception is not the same thing as blood transfusions.
Contraception is not the same thing as HIV medicine.

Special pleading.

• Scientology, but your honor blood transfusions are not the same as psychology.
• Jehovah's Witness: But your honor, HIV medicine is not the same thing as blood transfusions.
• Fundamentalist: But your honor, our case is special from all the rest.

Putting aside other uses for it (which would be covered by any insurance plan), contraception is used so that you can have sex without worrying about getting pregnant. Pregnancy is not an illness. It's the natural outcome of sexual activity. There is no pressing health need for contraception.

Pregnancy is a health risk.

There is no issue public concern with people getting pregnant. It's not really a health issue in the same way that blood transfusions and mental health are health issues. You won't die if you don't have sex. If you don't want to get pregnant but still want to have sex then you can buy your own contraception. It's cheap and in many places you can get it for free.

So again, where is the pressing public need for contraception?

It prevents health problems for the employee. It increases productivity for the employer. It is good for society. No brainer.