Religious freedom and contraception

[xjx388]

People eat too. It's more expensive, more necessary, and an even more primal human drive. And it's a medical necessity too: nobody can survive without it, regardless of their choices. But nobody else pays for my food, I have to buy that for myself. Why is contraception more important than food? Because you're treating it like it is.

Yes. Le's have a little fun with quotes:

Food Contraception is definitely a part of reproductive healthcare (whether you like it or not), and offering it at zero out of pocket cost is certainly within the public interest.

Health-wise, the need for food is definitely greater than the need for contraception, wouldn't you say? So why don't you advocate that the government offer free food for all?

 

[Ziggurat]

Except that's not what's being compared. What's being compared are medical conditions related to the activities. So that's just one big fail.

What medical conditions? Prior to sex, there IS no medical condition. If you engage in unprotected sex, then you might get pregnant, and that might require medical treatment. Just like if you go running without shoes, you might get a nail in your foot and require medical treatment. Or if you ride a bike without a helmet you might get a head injury that requires medical attention. But the equivalent in both cases is the protective measures: contraceptives vs. footwear or helmets, not contraceptives vs. treatment for existing injuries or illness. You have attempted to compare the latter, but the comparison was nonsense.

What a load of deflection. People don't stop having sex, the costs are transferred to society, what you advocate does increase harm all around.

You have no evidence of that. Let me repeat that, in case you aren't clear on this point: you have no evidence that a lack of medical insurance coverage for contraceptives in employee health care plans creates any net harm for society.

Plus, you're wrong. Some people DO refrain from having sex when they don't have available contraception. What they usually do is go obtain contraceptives, which isn't difficult or expensive.

 

[crimresearch]

No, it really isn't. Chimpanzees are quite social, and they don't do anything for profit.

Nope

http://www.springerlink.com/content/xujqfnw3f8tpbrnn/

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/com/50/6/571/

FOOD-TOKENS AS INCENTIVES FOR LEARNING BY CHIMPANZEES1
JT COWLES, JB WOLFE - Comparative psychology monographs, 1938 - Williams & Wilkins Company

Not only did chimpanzees learn to work for a wage, save their earnings, and calculate values in spending their tokens, they learned to steal the *tokens* from other chimpanzees... for intangible deferred benefits, i.e. profit.

 

[johnny karate]

Still trying to parse my words to avoid the fail I see. I said nothing about the percent, proportion, etc, which is what you cite tries to deal with.

No one parsed your words. I responded to a full and complete statement.

In that statement, you left out a crucial piece of information that created a misconception.

By stating "my health insurance premiums went up as a direct result of Obamacare", you created the misconception that Obamacare and Obamacare alone is responsible for your increased premiums.

In reality, rising health care costs are responsible for the majority of your premium increase, with only a fraction of that increase being attributable to Obamacare.

This is called lying by omission.

Well, yes, that or you assumed that you could try to force my statement to fit the argument that the cite dealt with, which was the proportion of the increase attributable to general costs increase and to new requirements.

I don't have to force anything. As I have clearly demonstrated, you lied by omission.

Well sure, after you've been forced to see that you cite actually supported my statement.

I was fully aware of what my cite stated before I posted it. As I said, I am capable of having an honest discussion about this issue. I don't have to hide behind knee-jerk partisan rhetoric. I can tell the truth and discuss it like an adult.

My health plan broke because of Obamacare, and I'm doubtful that anything down the line will fix it.

Speaking of knee-jerk partisan rhetoric....

Now your health plan is broken because of Obamacare?

What a ridiculous assertion. At least two-thirds of your premium increase was due to rising health care costs. The same rising health care costs that have been spiraling out of control the last few decades.

But it was that 1 to 3 percent increase that can be attributed to Obamacare that finally "broke" it?

Again:

Maybe you can tell me?
My health cost depend primarily on:
1. Doctor visits. How will Obamacare lower those? Is my doctor going to start charging less for a visit? How?
2. Hospital costs. How will Obamacare lower those? Are hospitals going to start charging less for a stay? How?
3. Drugs, tests, medical devices. Are pharmaceutical companies, device manufactures, a medical labs going to start charging less for their products or services? How?

My understanding is that the basic idea is that with more people in the system, the cost for everyone will go down. Seems like a pretty sound economic principle to me. Beyond that, I don't know.

Just because you've adopted the extreme "Obamacare is evil!" position, don't mistake my position for one that blindly defends it. I have my doubts. But I am at least willing to see what happens once it is fully implemented before I decry it a failure.

The cost of health care and access to it are very important issues that deserve to discussed honestly and openly. Telling lies and spreading misinformation does nothing to further the discussion or solve the problem.

 

[Neally]

Does the Constitution forbid the government from making laws prohibiting you from yelling "fire" in the movie theater or slandering people?

No it doesn't, and that's the point, in direct contradiction to your statement that "If the Constitution forbids something, then it cannot be "overridden" without an amendment to the Constitution". Limits can and are placed on those constitutional guarantees without any amendments.

 

[cwalner]

Or if you ride a bike without a helmet you might get a head injury that requires medical attention. But the equivalent in both cases is the protective measures: contraceptives vs. footwear or helmets, not contraceptives vs. treatment for existing injuries or illness.

Lets explore that bike helmet analogy a bit further and see if we really want that to apply to sex and contraceptives.

Many states require the use of bike helmets because of the injury they help prevent. Since, as you say, the activity is voluntary, the state does not pay for the protection, but fines people for the lack of use.

Therefore, I assume that you would have no problem if a state or the feds passed a law requiring all non-married couples to use contraception during sex or pay a stiff fine.

Or will you admit that maybe the bike helmet is not a good analogy.



*I also think that some cities have regulations about walking barefoot on certain public lands so the same issues might apply.

 

[RandFan]

Eating the wrong foods lower productivity and the cost is passed onto the insurance company and/or society.

Exactly! However, the simple fact of the matter is that some percentage of people won't make the right choices. So we can accept that fact, foster personal responsibility and mitigate harm to individuals and society when that fails.

Enact a small change now or pay a lot later. How is that so difficult to understand?

It's not at all hard for me to understand. I'm for personal responsibility. I also accept reality. We don't live in an ideal world. So, let's foster personal responsibility and enact changes to mitigate the harm caused by poor decisions like smoking, failure to eat properly and exercise.

What is wrong with people having personal responsibility for their actions?

Nothing is wrong with expecting people to have personal responsibility for their actions. I support that. xjx838 has offered solutions to help people take more responsibility and I'm for those. However, to the extent that people don't make a change we can help ourselves by helping them.

If people want to do something what is wrong with expecting them to pay for it?

Living in a fantasy world where you believe that demanding that they pay for it themselves won't harm you or society is silly. The cost for unwanted pregnancies must be paid by someone. If poor women cannot afford it then society bears the cost. Telling yourself that you are making them bear personal responsibility all by themselves is a delusion.

 

[RandFan]

They already are forced to pay for contraceptives.

It really is a moot point.

Be it religious leader or congregant, if you pay taxes you pay for contraceptives.

History of Title X

The Title X Family Planning program ["Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs" (Public Law 91-572)], was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only Federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. The Title X program is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Whether or not the contraception itself is covered makes absolutely no difference to the cost of the office visit.

I'm talking about the cost of the office visit as part of the cost of getting prescription contraceptives. It can't be said to be zero-out-of-pocket if the office visit requires payment.

Why is there a need for zero out-of-pocket coverage? Contraception is affordable even without it.

That's just begging the question.

 

[Ziggurat]

Lets explore that bike helmet analogy a bit further and see if we really want that to apply to sex and contraceptives.

Many states require the use of bike helmets because of the injury they help prevent. Since, as you say, the activity is voluntary, the state does not pay for the protection, but fines people for the lack of use.

Therefore, I assume that you would have no problem if a state or the feds passed a law requiring all non-married couples to use contraception during sex or pay a stiff fine.

If I thought that the state should have the power to prohibit out-of-wedlock childbirth, perhaps I wouldn't have a problem with such additional impositions. But I don't, so your assumption is nonsensical. It doesn't follow from anything I've ever said in any way, shape, or form.

Nevertheless, the issue here isn't about mandating someone use something, it's about mandating that someone pay for someone else's optional use of something.

Or will you admit that maybe the bike helmet is not a good analogy.

None of these analogies are all that great. But I'm not the one who introduced the analogies, and nothing I've put forth is worse than tyr's original analogy.

 

[xjx388]

That's just begging the question.

Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.

Uh-huh, so? How much is food costing her during law school? Why isn't she asking for food to be covered in health care insurance?

Perhaps she has an agenda? Oh no, but only the religious freaks have an agenda . . .

 

[Neally]

In that statement, you left out a crucial piece of information that created a misconception.

The only "misconception" is in your mind, and in your attempts to weasel out of the fact that it is factually correct that Obamacare directly resulted in my health insurance going up.

In reality, rising health care costs are responsible for the majority of your premium increase, with only a fraction of that increase being attributable to Obamacare.

It is factually correct that Obamacare directly resulted in my health insurance going up and your cite, rather than disputing that fact, confirmed it.

Speaking of knee-jerk partisan rhetoric....

Now your health plan is broken because of Obamacare?

No, it broke it, in the sense that it was fine, and I was happy with it. Then Obamacare came along and caused the premium to go up as a result of adding crap onto it that I didn't need or want.

My understanding is that the basic idea is that with more people in the system, the cost for everyone will go down. Seems like a pretty sound economic principle to me. Beyond that, I don't know.

Huh? People buying more stuff, increasing demand, makes prices go up, not down. You're right, you don't know, but since is was backed by your hero, it must work. Somehow. Magically?

Just because you've adopted the extreme "Obamacare is evil!" position, don't mistake my position for one that blindly defends it. I have my doubts. But I am at least willing to see what happens once it is fully implemented before I decry it a failure.

Skepticism is good, but the Pelosi philosophy that we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it is irresponsible.

 

[Bri]

Does the Constitution forbid the government from making laws prohibiting you from yelling "fire" in the movie theater or slandering people?

No it doesn't, and that's the point, in direct contradiction to your statement that "If the Constitution forbids something, then it cannot be "overridden" without an amendment to the Constitution".

I said, "If the Constitution forbids something, then ..." and you offered a "counter-example" where the Constitution doesn't forbid something.

Limits can and are placed on those constitutional guarantees without any amendments.

You didn't provide an example where the Constitution forbids something which is then "overridden" without an amendment. No amendment is necessary for your examples because the Constitution doesn't forbid laws prohibiting the action in question under the circumstances you listed.

Similarly, the Constitution doesn't forbid the government from making laws that interfere with religious freedom in all circumstances.

Thanks for providing an example that illustrates my point.

-Bri

 

[cwalner]

Uh-huh, so? How much is food costing her during law school? Why isn't she asking for food to be covered in health care insurance?

Perhaps she has an agenda? Oh no, but only the religious freaks have an agenda . . .

I Imagine that she paid about the same that I did on food for the same period of time (probably less, cause I splurge on good food).

However, I wonder what the average cost of contraceptives are for male law students. Do you think that she should charge any guy she sleeps with to pay for a portion of her contraception to cover the time they are together? Then she would truly be verging on prostitution.

The fact of the matter is both genders benefit greatly from contraception, but without insurance the burden falls only on the women. Including it in insurance helps to properly distribute the financial burden to everybody who benefits.

 

[xjx388]

It really is a moot point.

Be it religious leader or congregant, if you pay taxes you pay for contraceptives.

Excellent point. It is already covered under the general tax scheme and the Catholic Church can't get out of that one.

So why not advocate for increased funding for Title X clinics? Or is this more about hurting the CC than women's health?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm talking about the cost of the office visit as part of the cost of getting prescription contraceptives. It can't be said to be zero-out-of-pocket if the office visit requires payment.

If you insist on not calling it zero cost (and hey, it still costs gas to drive to the pharmacy), then suit yourself. Your scenario is still irrelevant, even prescription contraceptives remain affordable with or without this mandate.

That's just begging the question.

No, it really isn't. How on earth did Fluke rack up $3000 in contraceptive costs? Because you can get contraceptives, even birth control pills for a hell of a lot less money than that. Maybe it's possible to rack up those kinds of costs (though I'm still at a loss for exactly how she did it), and maybe she really did, but if she elected to get something far more expensive than necessary, well, that doesn't mean that an affordable option wasn't available. So again, contraceptives are affordable, so what is the need for this coverage?

 

[RandFan]

Excellent point. It is already covered under the general tax scheme and the Catholic Church can't get out of that one.

So why not advocate for increased funding for Title X clinics? Or is this more about hurting the CC than women's health?

The report by Guttmacher, Business Group and Brookings found that employers benefited directly from contraception services. Given the ACA it was a natural that the co-pays for the contraceptive insurance already covered should be picked up at that end. No conspiracy.

 

[xjx388]

I Imagine that she paid about the same that I did on food for the same period of time (probably less, cause I splurge on good food).

OK. But why cover birth control under health insurance but not food. It's hard to imagine good health without food, isn't it?

However, I wonder what the average cost of contraceptives are for male law students. Do you think that she should charge any guy she sleeps with to pay for a portion of her contraception to cover the time they are together? Then she would truly be verging on prostitution.

I'm not Rush Limbaugh . . .

The fact of the matter is both genders benefit greatly from contraception, but without insurance the burden falls only on the women. Including it in insurance helps to properly distribute the financial burden to everybody who benefits.

But as RandFan pointed out, women can get birth control through Title X clinics of which there are plenty in DC. All women already have access to birth control through these programs.

 

[crimresearch]

No it doesn't, and that's the point, in direct contradiction to your statement that "If the Constitution forbids something, then it cannot be "overridden" without an amendment to the Constitution". Limits can and are placed on those constitutional guarantees without any amendments.

And as pointed out (although there should have been no need) 'limit' and 'prohibit' are not always identical concepts.

The mechanism for placing limits on things is spelled out in one part of the Constitution, the mechanism for changing the Constitution to prohibit something
previously alllowed is in a different place.

But, you knew that, right?

 

[crimresearch]

Uh-huh, so? How much is food costing her during law school? Why isn't she asking for food to be covered in health care insurance?

Perhaps she has an agenda? Oh no, but only the religious freaks have an agenda . . .

Between that earlier amazing flip-flop, your other contortions, now this moving of goalposts, and all the running away, I certainly hope that your health plan isn't administered by Christian Scientists.