Religious freedom and contraception

[Neally]

There is no flaw. That's a lie.

• Two models.
• Both with sterilization. DING DING DING!

The accurate comparison would be one model with BC and one without. This model doesn't do that, therefore it's no support for your claim of net zero impact of including contraception coverage in private plans. Since your entire claim rests on this single flawed example, your claim remains unsupported. Private employers should not be forced to provide contraception in their health plans. There is no public good by doing so, any more than forcing health plans to provide me with free running shoes. Employees can and will pay for it themselves.

 

[RandFan]

The accurate comparison would be one model with BC and one without. This model doesn't do that, therefore it's no support for your claim of net zero impact of including contraception coverage in private plans.

That's flat out wrong and dishonest. That is precisely the type of model science deals with all of the time be it climate change or evolution.

Since your entire claim rests on this single flawed example, your claim remains unsupported.

Argument by assertion is a fallacy.

Private employers should not be forced to provide contraception in their health plans. There is no public good by doing so, any more than forcing health plans to provide me with free running shoes. Employees can and will pay for it themselves.

Guttmacher, Brookings, etc. Multiple studies. Your claims of conspiracy are baseless and dishonest.

 

[xjx388]

Oh no?

No one on this thread thinks that the 1st Amendment gives religious institutions the right to impose their dogma on the rest of society.

It gives them protection against having the govt. restrict the free exercise of their religion.

 

[Bri]

It gives them protection against having the govt. restrict the free exercise of their religion.

Unless the government does so across the board (i.e. it is not specifically targeted against any religious group). That's what you keep forgetting to mention.

-Bri

 

[Neally]

That's flat out wrong and dishonest. That is precisely the type of model science deals with all of the time be it climate change or evolution.

Climate change? Evolution? How about simply comparing the cost for a company with and without contraception in their health plan. Your model doesn't do that.

Argument by assertion is a fallacy.

Well then, where is all this data the supports your claim? Are you deliberately being coy, or is it that you don't actually have anything else?

Guttmacher, Brookings, etc. Multiple studies. Your claims of conspiracy are baseless and dishonest.

Links then, to the actual studies, and not papers that talk about the studies, which as I've proven, didn't give the full disclosure and didn't actually show what they claimed it showed. Is hand waving away the obvious flaw and claiming "conspiracy theory" your approach to presenting your case?

 

[RandFan]

Climate change? Evolution?

Yes, comparisons are not always perfect. But in this case it might have even been better.

How about simply comparing the cost for a company with and without contraception in their health plan. Your model doesn't do that.

It doesn't need to. I don't know why they didn't. I would imagine the sterilization would provide a good control. One thing is for certain, removing a key variable and pretending that it wouldn't affect the results is dishonest.

Well then, where is all this data the supports your claim?

Conspiracy theory much? Brookings, Guttmacher, Business group. You are claiming they are conspiring to provide false information.

Is hand waving away the obvious flaw...

Argument by assertion is a fallacy. Parity isn't a flaw. Not even close. By your logic climate change science is obviously flawed.

 

[Neally]

It doesn't need to.

It does if they are trying to compare the cost to a company with and without birth control.

]I don't know why they didn't.

Maybe because the results don't work out the way they want them to if they did it right.

I would imagine the sterilization would provide a good control.

Control for what? What possible reason would they include sterilization in the "no contraception" column if they are purporting to make a comparison between a plan with and without contraception?

One thing is for certain, removing a key variable and pretending that it wouldn't affect the results is dishonest.

Exactly. Taking out sterilization from the plan with contraception would undoubtedly cause people to choose other methods instead, thus increasing the policy costs for those methods.

Conspiracy theory much? Brookings, Guttmacher, Business group. You are claiming they are conspiring to provide false information.

The model was set up to include sterilization in the category of "no contraception". Completely ridiculous. You tell me why that was done if it wasn't to show a favorable outcome.

Argument by assertion is a fallacy. Parity isn't a flaw.

You keep saying that, but won't provide links to data that supports your case. That pretty much makes YOUR claim that contraception benefits are cost negative or neutral an argument by assertion fallacy.

 

[RandFan]

It does if they are trying to compare the cost to a company with and without birth control.

And it does exactly that.

You keep saying that, but won't provide links to data that supports your case. That pretty much makes YOUR claim that contraception benefits are cost negative or neutral an argument by assertion fallacy.

A fallacy isn't a false proposition. And I stand by that. Given that there is parity of sterilization in both plans then, like other science, we can compare the two.

In any event, I find you dishonest. Your conspiratorial claims to reject the studies and recommendation of the experts is up there with any 9/11 truth nut or climate change denier. The science quite frankly isn't difficult you just want to play some game to dismiss it. I've no time for it. I stopped going to the CT threads a long time ago. You can't reason with everyone. So, I won't be responding to you anymore. Good bye.

 

[leftysergeant]

No one on this thread thinks that the 1st Amendment gives religious institutions the right to impose their dogma on the rest of society.

It gives them protection against having the govt. restrict the free exercise of their religion.

Are you deliuberately ignoring the fact that the church is gobbling up a good proportion of the hospital buisiness aqnd thus cutting off the ability of many health care workers to find work in the field in a place where they can get what anybody with a room-temp IQ should be able to see is a minimum standard of coverage?

 

[leftysergeant]

Climate change? Evolution? How about simply comparing the cost for a company with and without contraception in their health plan. Your model doesn't do that.

If the plan covers all pregnancy and maternity-related expenses, it has to be cheaper to provide contraceptiuon.

Have you any idea how much it costs to have a baby these days, even if the mother is as strong as an ox?

 

[Bri]

Are you deliuberately ignoring the fact that the church is gobbling up a good proportion of the hospital buisiness aqnd thus cutting off the ability of many health care workers to find work in the field in a place where they can get what anybody with a room-temp IQ should be able to see is a minimum standard of coverage?

Nearly all Catholic hospitals already offer contraceptive coverage for their employees because they know that the best doctors and nurses would simply work elsewhere without prescription drug coverage (in most states, if an employer offers drug coverage it's considered discrimination if it doesn't include contraception).

-Bri

 

[xjx388]

Are you deliuberately ignoring the fact that the church is gobbling up a good proportion of the hospital buisiness aqnd thus cutting off the ability of many health care workers to find work in the field in a place where they can get what anybody with a room-temp IQ should be able to see is a minimum standard of coverage?

No. The CC is taking over failing for-profit hospitals that would otherwise have closed. Apparently, the govt thinks it's a mortal sin for hospitals and other healthcare providers to make a profit.

Again. If birth control coverage is important to you:

1. Don't work for the CC.
2. Buy it yourself.

The solution is simple. But the Sense of Entitlement in America is strong . . .

 

[Indy418]

If the plan covers all pregnancy and maternity-related expenses, it has to be cheaper to provide contraceptiuon.

Have you any idea how much it costs to have a baby these days, even if the mother is as strong as an ox?

Around $25,000. At least that's how much my insurance paid three years ago for my son. And that's only what they paid up to us leaving the hospital after my son was born. I lost count of what they've paid for my son's health care since then.

 

[RandFan]

No. The CC is taking over failing for-profit hospitals that would otherwise have closed. Apparently, the govt thinks it's a mortal sin for hospitals and other healthcare providers to make a profit.

That would be a straw man.

The solution is simple. But the Sense of Entitlement in America is strong

Fatuous. The sense of public good is strong in some. Common sense is so-so.

• It helps the employer.
• It helps the employee.
• It's good for society.
• The hospitals pay for BC regardless.

 

[RandFan]

Around $25,000. At least that's how much my insurance paid three years ago for my son. And that's only what they paid up to us leaving the hospital after my son was born. I lost count of what they've paid for my son's health care since then.

It's not at all a controversial fact. And that's just the direct medical costs of a healthy pregnancy. Lost productivity? Costs for complications?

It really is a no brainer.

 

[RandFan]

That would be a straw man.

Fatuous. The sense of public good is strong in some. Common sense is so-so.

• It helps the employer.
• It helps the employee.
• It's good for society.
• The hospitals pay for BC regardless.

I think this is the one that belies the fake outrage over this mandate.

Bob: Don't force religiously owned organizations to pay for BC.
Tim: We've been doing it for 40 years it's called Title X.
Bob: Oh, well, don't make them pay anymore. That would be wrong.
Tim: ?

 

[xjx388]

Around $25,000. At least that's how much my insurance paid three years ago for my son. And that's only what they paid up to us leaving the hospital after my son was born. I lost count of what they've paid for my son's health care since then.

Was the delivery complicated? Because $25k is more than three times the average for an uncomplicated delivery - $7564.

And what was charged is very different from what was actually paid.

 

[xjx388]

I think this is the one that belies the fake outrage over this mandate.

Bob: Don't force religiously owned organizations to pay for BC.
Tim: We've been doing it for 40 years it's called Title X.
Bob: Oh, well, don't make them pay anymore. That would be wrong.
Tim: ?

Title X = General Tax that no one can get out of.

BC = Direct payment for service that should be optional.

 

[RandFan]

Title X = General Tax that no one can get out of.

BC = Direct payment for service that should be optional.

And?

Bob: We don't want to pay for BC unless we have to.

?

Uh, yeah, that's the point.

Finally, xjx, you are special pleading. You are saying that there are special circumstances that make it okay to force people to fund BC. This is a Democracy. The Churches could lobby and work to end Title X.

 

[Bri]

Title X = General Tax that no one can get out of.

BC = Direct payment for service that should be optional.

So you'd be OK with it if the government provided contraceptive coverage directly and raised taxes on employers to pay for it?

-Bri