“(S)trong-arm our government into helping the church control the behavior of its flock “?
How? Do you mean by merely not PAYING for their abortions and birth control? Because there is nothing else they are doing that would stop anyone from getting these thing themselves.
I find it amusing how this issue seems to draw out all the hysterical leftist drama queens and gets them to work themselves into an irrational lather that neither common sense nor logic cannot penetrate.
But if you want to make yourself look foaming-at-the-mouth crazy this close to the election, causing any sensible people who were listening to you before to turn away, then let me say “you go girl!”
My goodness, Jim, the issue is whether employees of church-owned businesses can have contraceptive coverage included in their employer-sponsored health plan.
“Common sense” is the lowest form of intelligence shared by all humans. “Common sense” means letting stupid people set the standard, and “common sense” would tell you that the sun and moon circle the earth…
Jim, the Catholic bishops chose this fight, even though many state insurance regs ALREADY require health insurance church-owned businesses offer employees to include contraceptive coverage.
Again, you define freedom negatively: the Catholic Church’s freedom is dependent on its being able to deny contraceptive coverage to its employees. And, you still don’t acknowledge that a church is totally different from a business owned and operated by that church.
Funny how you dismiss an argument you are impotent to answer as “garbage.”
And again, in spite of what has been commonly reported, those states allow exemptions. They don’t require contraceptive coverage.
“Catholic Church’s freedom is dependent on its being able to deny contraceptive coverage to its employees.”
Really? How does the Catholic Church deny contraceptive coverage to its employees? They are free to get their coverage elsewhere or cover it themselves. Many private health care plans don’t cover birth control, not just the Catholic Church’s. Its not just the Catholic Church’s rights being steamrolled here. So in that regard, it doesn’t matter if its a Church owned business or a “Mom & Pop” business.
What next? If the Catholic Churches don’t offer a meat alternative on Fridays during lent, they’re denying access?
I define freedom positively. Individuals should have a freedom to choose the insurance coverage that’s right for them. That is only possible if companies and institutions are free to offer a variety of choices. You seem to advocate the Henry Ford version of freedom. You’re free to choose “Any color, so long as it’s black.”
Sorry, but you’re the one who’s defining freedom as the taking away of choices.
“What next? If the Catholic Churches don’t offer a meat alternative on Fridays during lent (sic), they’re denying access?”
Classic slippery slope, Will, as indeed your entire objection to the regs leads to. You also make it sound easy to purchase individual insurance. The issue here is that health insurance is an important employment benefit in this country, since we have made the mistake of tieing health insurance to one’s employment.
If the Church argues it will not pay for a contraceptive provision in its group policy made available to its employees, then the church is denying those employees that option. No one is saying employees MUST use the contracpetive coverage, simply that the Church must act as a responsible employers by making that coverage available, as other employers are required to.
It’s funny how you accuse ME of denying people choices while defending the power of an employer to do exactly that…
I completely reject that view point Jeff. My work does not pay for my lunch. So, are they denying me the right to eat? Not at all, they just don’t pay for it. I still have the access and ability to eat. So no, they are not the same at all.
I reject your rejection, zach. Obama’s compromise merely shifts costs around: obviously, insurance carriers will pass on the cost of providing contraceptive coverage.
The Catholic bishops picked this fight, which Obama then finagled. I assert that every American has a right to health insurance which includes contraceptive coverage. Too bad Obama chose not to engage that fight.
You might very well feel that way Jeff. And the next person could feel everyone feels like your entitled to health insurance that pays for asst suicide. Regardless not paying is not the same as denying access and you know it.
Zach, since you’ve stated in the past you have firsthand experience working in the health insurance industry, and presumably from that have some insight into how it works, how about imparting some of that knowledge, instead of simply telling someone they’re wrong or you disagree with them?
It would be far more constructive, and who knows, it might even enlighten people.
Never claimed to work in health insurance Lori. And really shal I go back to some of your above posts. As for my post, I simply said not paying for something is far different from denying access to it. And my lunch analogy hits it square in the head.
Zach, I’m not being flip, I’m being sincere. I really thought you had at one time said you had experience working in the health care industry. If I’m wrong, just say so, and let it go at that.
Zach, I don’t care if you eat your lunch at your desk. FSM knows I did that for years. If you’re on the clock, of course your company won’t pay for your lunch break. You have to punch out. If you’re in a management position you’ll receive the paycheck that you’ve agreed to with your employer.
Excellent example Zach. Mentioned food being paid for on another one of the contraceptive threads last week.
Jeff…how can you possibly disagree with the example? I would argue Zach’s example is even better simply because contraception is not neccessarily needed by women (i.e., some never use BC pills, which is what we are talking about), but you have to eat to survive.
What argument? All I saw there was an irrelevant accusation against the Catholic Church.
Was your implied argument “the Catholic Church did things with government cooperation in other countries, therefore we should read the free exercise of religion clause out of the First Amendment”? Because that’s pretty silly.
You have yet to provide any evidence of how the HHS regs interfere with the Catholic Church’s freedom, Jim.
Requiring any church-operated business to obey the same regs, including offering the business’s employees contraceptive coverage, is hardly an example of the kind of “coerced speech” which the Supreme Court condemned in W. Virginia v. Barnette.
Jim, You’re profile picture says it all and it isn’t worth my time and effort of trying to have an intellectual conversation with you on this subject.
The simplified version — No matter who the owner is, they are running a secular business and therefore must abide by the same laws as every other secular business, especially since they receive federal money. If they do not like the mandate, then don’t offer the employees insurance.
Absolutely, Laura. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the mandate can opt out of employer insurance altogether and purchase their own. It won’t be cheap, but at least they’ll know they’re not subsidizing an unwanted uterus.
“If they do not like the mandate, then don’t offer the employees insurance.”
And that’s what’s called “freedom to choose” by some.
No business, secular or otherwise, should be restricted like that.
I don’t know if it was planned or an accident that the Obama administration now has people begging to have their choices limited.
Somehow they’ve managed to convince people that its all about the Church trying to deny women birth control. And people are buying it. That fact simply astounds me.
Will, if you think it’s somehow become all about the Cathloic church trying to deny women wirth control, it’s because the church has picked a fight over this and carried on about so much that that’s the impression that many people are starting to have about this controversy.
I agree, Rich! Given that Santorum and Romney continue to shoot themselves in the foot trying to out-”right” each other, it should be entertaining, at least.
The weirdest moment was in an NY Times story about Romney’s troubles in Michigan: there are MANY folks in that state who are still fuming over Romney’s oppositon to the auto industry bailout. Former auto exec Bob Lutz claimed that because Romney is a prisoner of the GOP’s right wing, that’s why he opposed the bailout.
And the call from the left continues to be, “All hail our new health care overlords!”
Because for now, they’re getting what they want. They seem oblivious to what this means down the road. Just like we’ve seen over and over throughout history. People are willing to turn over power to a central authority because (at least for the time) they agree with what the central authority is doing. The problem is, that never works out in the long term. Even the Patriot Act had expiration dates and sunset clauses, for a reason.
It wasn’t all that long ago, the current HHS administration was caught flat-footed following their recommendation to reduce the frequency of mammograms. Then, as now, I’d argue its up to the woman and her doctor to determine that. Not the federal government. Apparently, some people think that’s wrong. That the federal government should decide such things for everyone.
Let’s be honest. The mandate does not increase choice, it decreases choice. It does not save money, it raises overall costs.
How? The Obama administration is trying to take away that choice, and you’re supporting that effort.
So how can you tell me to “self-insure” when you’re trying to make that impossible?
And down the road, when that single-payer plan you’ve pushed so hard for says you can only have that mammogram every 2 years, what then? You have no option. You have no choice. You blissfully gave it away.
And you gave away my choice along with your choice. And you gave away my daughters’ choices.
Yes, that’s an option. For now. But what can I do after you guys have “enrolled” me (and everyone else) in the mandatory, single-payer system many of you seem to want?
Now let’s look at your link from the other side. One of the reasons for going that route is, “When employer plans no longer meet workers’ coverage needs”.
That’s exactly the freedom I’ve often referenced. That’s the freedom those women who work for a religious institution have right now. That’s the freedom you seem to want to take away.
And if the government wants to set up health insurance exchanges to make it easier for people to pick & choose the plan that’s right for them, I’m all for it. That gives people greater freedom to opt out of their employer’s plans. That’s better than forcing all employers to provide insurance. That just makes things worse.
Will – Let’s take a look at the current state of affairs. The US pays, by a wide margin, more for health care than any other country in the world. Insurance is unavailable for many. Close to a million personal bankruptcies occur every year due to the cost of medical care despite the fact that many of these people have health insurance.
Why haven’t the Republicans proposed a solution for this problem? Oh! – excuse me – they did. In the early 90s they proposed an alternative to Hillary Clinton’s proposal and it was very similar to the Affordable Care Act that is now in place.
“But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others….
Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.
And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.”
Note the words, “not a legal requirement.” Nobody was going to be punished for not complying. Nobody was going to be forced to go against their personal beliefs. No choices were being taken away. That’s the difference between a Republican “mandate” and a Democratic one.
Rich do yourself a favor. Do some research. In Canada one of the top three reasons for BK is medical bills. The problem doesn’t go away with the governments involvment.
I see that, once again, Zack is referencing a quasi-fact with no sources to support his contention.
FYI – medical expenses is the number one cause of personal BKs in the US by a very large margin. In Canada, it may be the third cause and may still only be a factor in a very small number of BKs. We don’t know because Zack has not provided a source for his claim.
That wasn’t the discussion, Morris. It was to directly contradict what Rich said. Clealry, medical expenses are NOT a top cause of bankruptcy in this country, per my link.
Sorry, Ray, your AEI story is not the powerful rebuttal you claim it is. Indeed, the argument deteriorates towards unfounded assertions: “On the rare occasion that medical debts do partially contribute to bankruptcy, they likely accumulate from patients’ demands for the kinds of expensive, cutting-edge or end-of-life treatments that would never be covered by government insurance anyway. It is a fact that many of these same types of expensive treatments are increasingly not insured by government healthcare in Canada.” There is absolutely NO foundation of evidence for that assertion.
Rich, first off its Zach, not Zack. Thanks. Second, you are correct I did not post a link because a simple google search brings up more than enough articles to make my point. Again, that is why I said do a little more research. You saw one article and assumed it to be the absolute case, which obviously it is not. So, go ahead and just google it.
That’s the thing Ms Henning: no one who works at a company that offers health insurance that covers birth control will be obligated to make use of that benefit. Further, if businesses still object to having to offer birth control coverage in their health insurance plans, they can self-insure or not offer health insurance at all. Barring those options, those businesses are going to be obligated to follow the same rules and regs ans any other business that employs and serves the public in a secular world.
That really is what this conversation is all about. To regulate choice until you have no choice. Whether it’s for religious beliefs, mandated regulation that is so costly businesses give into Obamas welfare healthcare.
There in lays part of the problem. Neither of you have had your own business. With or without employees. Well? Yet you have no problem extended your hand out expecting someone else to pay for something you won’t yourself. Good grief!
David Himmelstein, Deborah Thorne, Elizabeth Warren, and Steffie Woolhandler authored the studies which have been used as evidence to support the proposition that medical expenses are a leading cause of personal bankruptcy filings, in order to propose that the US have a national single-payer plan like Canada’s.
David Dranove and Michael Millenson in Health Affairs and the American Enterprise Institute’s Aparna Mathur have examined the previous studies with a mind to rebut their claims. Here’s where Ray’s source gets interesting:
“Dranove and Millenson critically analyzed the data from the 2005 edition of the medical bankruptcy study. They found that medical spending was a contributing factor in only 17 percent of U.S. bankruptcies. They also reviewed other research, including studies by the Department of Justice, finding that medical debts accounted for only 12 percent to 13 percent of the total debts among American bankruptcy filers who cited medical debt as one of their reasons for bankruptcy.”
Those are the ONLY hard numbers in the linked story. I would argue that 17 percent (bankruptcies in which medical spending was a contributing factor) is pretty significant. As I noted above Skinner could not avoid unwarrranted speculation: “On the rare occasion that medical debts do partially contribute to bankruptcy, they likely accumulate from patients’ demands for the kinds of expensive, cutting-edge or end-of-life treatments that would never be covered by government insurance anyway. It is a fact that many of these same types of expensive treatments are increasingly not insured by government healthcare in Canada.”
Ray’s AEI link is not useless, just slanted. I will confess I didn’t read your link, Rich: I trust your sources of information, and will ALWAYS dig into a rightie source, because they are usually such weak evidence, and I have so much fun pointing out how weak and slanted the source material is which our rightie colleagues rely upon!
In other words, 17 % Is a “significant” number for bankruptcies, yet still not near the number one reason people go bankrupt, which was the reason I posted, AND refuted Rich’s info.
And FYI? I distrust proggies sources probably moreso than you do conservative sources.
“Woolhandler and her colleagues surveyed a random sample of 2,314 people who filed for bankruptcy in early 2007, looked at their court records, and then interviewed more than 1,000 of them.
“They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.”
There is SO MUCH MORE information in Rich’s link than in your AEI story that the contrast is stunning. And Ray, the information was right there in the CNN story: I don’t have to go jumping through multiple links.
And for what it’s worth, I find CNN to be more credible as an unbiased news source than the AEI, and I’ll take the work of Harvard researchers over some hack at a right-wing think tank any day.
Did any of you stop to think about your taxes paying for health care coverage for elected officials?? Well, it does. Now, I imagine there has been a female elected official or the spouse of and elected official for whom you have paid their birth control…and possibly their D&C and/or abortion. You don’t hear too much about that. I remember reading recently about Rick Santorum’s wife having an abortion to save her life. Taxpayer’s most likely paid for that procedure. Did you ever think about that?? And another thing. If abortion’s are immoral and against ‘God’s will’ why on earth would taxpayer’s have to pay for erection dysfunction medication–obviously God meant for men to have a limp you know what or he wouldn’t have done that to men. I personally don’t want to pay for something that is against God’s will–dysfunctional erections. So, next time you get all huffy puffy about birth control for women think about those things, because obviously you haven’t.
So the Church of Rome (and some other minor minions) feel that their ‘Freedom of Religion’ has been restricted? That’s an odd way to misread that portion of the First Amendment which says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
There is no way that making the employer (The Church of Rome) provide complete coverage to its employees a prohibition of the free exercise of their religion. The Church of Rome can still ask that their followers amongst that group, cast aside the benefits that most Americans have available to them. It is disturbing though that the Church of Rome would attempt to exercise control over people who are not of their flock. This attempt at undue control of the Church over the State, is specifically why our ancestors came to these shores and eventually embraced that ‘Wall of Separation’ that became enshrined in our Constitution. The First Amendment was never intended to allow the mandate of one church or group of churches to hold sway over a portion of the population.
-u20042.png?1366232523)
“(S)trong-arm our government into helping the church control the behavior of its flock “?
How? Do you mean by merely not PAYING for their abortions and birth control? Because there is nothing else they are doing that would stop anyone from getting these thing themselves.
I find it amusing how this issue seems to draw out all the hysterical leftist drama queens and gets them to work themselves into an irrational lather that neither common sense nor logic cannot penetrate.
But if you want to make yourself look foaming-at-the-mouth crazy this close to the election, causing any sensible people who were listening to you before to turn away, then let me say “you go girl!”
My goodness, Jim, the issue is whether employees of church-owned businesses can have contraceptive coverage included in their employer-sponsored health plan.
And, the Catholic Church has a history of collaborating with temporal governments when doing so serves the Church’s ends: read up on the Lateran Treaty:
http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?org_id=878&kb_header_id=842
“Common sense” is the lowest form of intelligence shared by all humans. “Common sense” means letting stupid people set the standard, and “common sense” would tell you that the sun and moon circle the earth…
And the Eath is flat and 6,000 years old…
Cats are smarter than that, Galt.
eWoot! I have to agree with you about that, Lori. My bestest cat, Gigi, was so smart she would pee in the toilet.
My two dogs (Bart and Ginger) are exTRMEly smart. It’s hard to keep up with what they’re thinking. I’m so trained I have to walk them now.
Wow…whole lot of flaggin goin on!
Whoopee, Calef…
Let me guess, “Galt,” you don’t have pets.
“work themselves into an irrational lather that neither common sense nor logic cannot penetrate.”
You must not have mirrors or you have a major issue with projection…
Wrong, Jeff. This is about whether they church must do this, which is a violation of their god-given rights recognized by the Constitution.
Any other garbage you bring up about any church’s history is irrelevant.
Jim, the Catholic bishops chose this fight, even though many state insurance regs ALREADY require health insurance church-owned businesses offer employees to include contraceptive coverage.
Again, you define freedom negatively: the Catholic Church’s freedom is dependent on its being able to deny contraceptive coverage to its employees. And, you still don’t acknowledge that a church is totally different from a business owned and operated by that church.
Funny how you dismiss an argument you are impotent to answer as “garbage.”
And again, in spite of what has been commonly reported, those states allow exemptions. They don’t require contraceptive coverage.
“Catholic Church’s freedom is dependent on its being able to deny contraceptive coverage to its employees.”
Really? How does the Catholic Church deny contraceptive coverage to its employees? They are free to get their coverage elsewhere or cover it themselves. Many private health care plans don’t cover birth control, not just the Catholic Church’s. Its not just the Catholic Church’s rights being steamrolled here. So in that regard, it doesn’t matter if its a Church owned business or a “Mom & Pop” business.
What next? If the Catholic Churches don’t offer a meat alternative on Fridays during lent, they’re denying access?
I define freedom positively. Individuals should have a freedom to choose the insurance coverage that’s right for them. That is only possible if companies and institutions are free to offer a variety of choices. You seem to advocate the Henry Ford version of freedom. You’re free to choose “Any color, so long as it’s black.”
Sorry, but you’re the one who’s defining freedom as the taking away of choices.
“Individuals should have a freedom to choose the insurance coverage that’s right for them.”
Buy your own heath insurance.
Julie- the above comment is the smartest thing your fingers have ever typed!
Whoopeee! I’m SO happy you said I was smart…. Buy your own insurance coverage, Zach. Just make sure it doen’t cover any unwanted uterus coverage.
You can get your contraceptive medication at WalMart ofr 9.99 per month.
The huge difference people are not seeing here is this has nothing to do with health care. NOTHING.
It doesn’t have anything to do with YUOR health care, Ray.
Women, however, beg to differ.
Of course it does. I have to pay for it.
It isn’t free, in spite of what Barry Hussein tells you.
And it is only 9.99 at WalMart.
And again…it has NOTHING to do with health care.
“Of course it does. I have to pay for it.”
That’s the price of living in a social contract, Ray. We all pay for things with which we disagree.
And again, it has nothing to do with YOUR healthcare. that’s the only thing you care about, right?
“And it is only 9.99 at WalMart.”
That’s actually more than it currently costs under some insurance plans.
btw…whatever happened to “they can get it for free at Planned Parenthood?” Did you give up on that mantra?
“Calef’s”
You still have to have a prescription.
As I said before: If you don’t want prescription care coverage for yourself, you wife, or your children, you can opt out employer heath care.
That way you can purchase contracepives at Walmart for $9.99/month. Right?
I could simply state that all of this crap that Berries Hussein is doing is un-Constitutional but neither of you care about that document.
It will be found un-Constitutional soon enough. Count on it.
Then why DID you bother to state it, Calef?
“What next? If the Catholic Churches don’t offer a meat alternative on Fridays during lent (sic), they’re denying access?”
Classic slippery slope, Will, as indeed your entire objection to the regs leads to. You also make it sound easy to purchase individual insurance. The issue here is that health insurance is an important employment benefit in this country, since we have made the mistake of tieing health insurance to one’s employment.
If the Church argues it will not pay for a contraceptive provision in its group policy made available to its employees, then the church is denying those employees that option. No one is saying employees MUST use the contracpetive coverage, simply that the Church must act as a responsible employers by making that coverage available, as other employers are required to.
It’s funny how you accuse ME of denying people choices while defending the power of an employer to do exactly that…
Jeff, in the situation above the church is not denying the contraceptive at all. It is simply saying it will not pay for it.
Not paying is the same thing as denying coverage and access, zach.
I completely reject that view point Jeff. My work does not pay for my lunch. So, are they denying me the right to eat? Not at all, they just don’t pay for it. I still have the access and ability to eat. So no, they are not the same at all.
I reject your rejection, zach. Obama’s compromise merely shifts costs around: obviously, insurance carriers will pass on the cost of providing contraceptive coverage.
The Catholic bishops picked this fight, which Obama then finagled. I assert that every American has a right to health insurance which includes contraceptive coverage. Too bad Obama chose not to engage that fight.
You might very well feel that way Jeff. And the next person could feel everyone feels like your entitled to health insurance that pays for asst suicide. Regardless not paying is not the same as denying access and you know it.
Zach, since you’ve stated in the past you have firsthand experience working in the health insurance industry, and presumably from that have some insight into how it works, how about imparting some of that knowledge, instead of simply telling someone they’re wrong or you disagree with them?
It would be far more constructive, and who knows, it might even enlighten people.
Never claimed to work in health insurance Lori. And really shal I go back to some of your above posts. As for my post, I simply said not paying for something is far different from denying access to it. And my lunch analogy hits it square in the head.
Zach, I’m not being flip, I’m being sincere. I really thought you had at one time said you had experience working in the health care industry. If I’m wrong, just say so, and let it go at that.
Zach, I don’t care if you eat your lunch at your desk. FSM knows I did that for years. If you’re on the clock, of course your company won’t pay for your lunch break. You have to punch out. If you’re in a management position you’ll receive the paycheck that you’ve agreed to with your employer.
As far as your
Excellent example Zach. Mentioned food being paid for on another one of the contraceptive threads last week.
Jeff…how can you possibly disagree with the example? I would argue Zach’s example is even better simply because contraception is not neccessarily needed by women (i.e., some never use BC pills, which is what we are talking about), but you have to eat to survive.
Try not to pat Zach on the back too hard Ray, he might tip over.
What argument? All I saw there was an irrelevant accusation against the Catholic Church.
Was your implied argument “the Catholic Church did things with government cooperation in other countries, therefore we should read the free exercise of religion clause out of the First Amendment”? Because that’s pretty silly.
You have yet to provide any evidence of how the HHS regs interfere with the Catholic Church’s freedom, Jim.
Requiring any church-operated business to obey the same regs, including offering the business’s employees contraceptive coverage, is hardly an example of the kind of “coerced speech” which the Supreme Court condemned in W. Virginia v. Barnette.
Jim,
You’re profile picture says it all and it isn’t worth my time and effort of trying to have an intellectual conversation with you on this subject.
The simplified version — No matter who the owner is, they are running a secular business and therefore must abide by the same laws as every other secular business, especially since they receive federal money. If they do not like the mandate, then don’t offer the employees insurance.
Absolutely, Laura. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the mandate can opt out of employer insurance altogether and purchase their own. It won’t be cheap, but at least they’ll know they’re not subsidizing an unwanted uterus.
“If they do not like the mandate, then don’t offer the employees insurance.”
And that’s what’s called “freedom to choose” by some.
No business, secular or otherwise, should be restricted like that.
I don’t know if it was planned or an accident that the Obama administration now has people begging to have their choices limited.
Somehow they’ve managed to convince people that its all about the Church trying to deny women birth control. And people are buying it. That fact simply astounds me.
Will, if you think it’s somehow become all about the Cathloic church trying to deny women wirth control, it’s because the church has picked a fight over this and carried on about so much that that’s the impression that many people are starting to have about this controversy.
Have you not been around for the last 40 years while christian™ cults and religious right have been working tirelessly to steal away people’s rights?
Or, self-insure its employees, Laura.
I just hope we can keep this issue alive until the election. Nothing could be better for President Obama and the Democrats in general.
I agree, Rich! Given that Santorum and Romney continue to shoot themselves in the foot trying to out-”right” each other, it should be entertaining, at least.
The weirdest moment was in an NY Times story about Romney’s troubles in Michigan: there are MANY folks in that state who are still fuming over Romney’s oppositon to the auto industry bailout. Former auto exec Bob Lutz claimed that because Romney is a prisoner of the GOP’s right wing, that’s why he opposed the bailout.
As a protest, Lutz voted FOR SANTORUM…
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/us/politics/after-auto-bailout-detroit-fallout-trails-romney.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
Talk about irony, Jeff…
And the call from the left continues to be, “All hail our new health care overlords!”
Because for now, they’re getting what they want. They seem oblivious to what this means down the road. Just like we’ve seen over and over throughout history. People are willing to turn over power to a central authority because (at least for the time) they agree with what the central authority is doing. The problem is, that never works out in the long term. Even the Patriot Act had expiration dates and sunset clauses, for a reason.
It wasn’t all that long ago, the current HHS administration was caught flat-footed following their recommendation to reduce the frequency of mammograms. Then, as now, I’d argue its up to the woman and her doctor to determine that. Not the federal government. Apparently, some people think that’s wrong. That the federal government should decide such things for everyone.
Let’s be honest. The mandate does not increase choice, it decreases choice. It does not save money, it raises overall costs.
Then self-insure yourself. Will.
I’m getting a physical on 3/3 and a mammogram on 3/5. Same as I did last year, and it’s what my doctor recommends I do every year.
“Then self-insure yourself. Will.”
Is that supposed to be a joke?
How? The Obama administration is trying to take away that choice, and you’re supporting that effort.
So how can you tell me to “self-insure” when you’re trying to make that impossible?
And down the road, when that single-payer plan you’ve pushed so hard for says you can only have that mammogram every 2 years, what then? You have no option. You have no choice. You blissfully gave it away.
And you gave away my choice along with your choice. And you gave away my daughters’ choices.
No joke, Will.
http://news.ehealthinsurance.com/pr/ehi/when-employees-opt-out-of-employer-219207.aspx
Yes, that’s an option. For now. But what can I do after you guys have “enrolled” me (and everyone else) in the mandatory, single-payer system many of you seem to want?
Now let’s look at your link from the other side. One of the reasons for going that route is, “When employer plans no longer meet workers’ coverage needs”.
That’s exactly the freedom I’ve often referenced. That’s the freedom those women who work for a religious institution have right now. That’s the freedom you seem to want to take away.
And if the government wants to set up health insurance exchanges to make it easier for people to pick & choose the plan that’s right for them, I’m all for it. That gives people greater freedom to opt out of their employer’s plans. That’s better than forcing all employers to provide insurance. That just makes things worse.
What was that Benjamin Franklin quote the left liked to throw around during the Bush administration, again?
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
You have yet to show any liberty which is being violated, Jim.
Will – Let’s take a look at the current state of affairs. The US pays, by a wide margin, more for health care than any other country in the world. Insurance is unavailable for many. Close to a million personal bankruptcies occur every year due to the cost of medical care despite the fact that many of these people have health insurance.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH
Why haven’t the Republicans proposed a solution for this problem? Oh! – excuse me – they did. In the early 90s they proposed an alternative to Hillary Clinton’s proposal and it was very similar to the Affordable Care Act that is now in place.
And if the Republicans proposed it, it must be a good idea! Is that what you’re saying?
Seriously, though. Yes, the Republicans have proposed many solutions, including the one you’ve referenced. But there are some differences that I’ll let the man behind the proposal explain.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-03/health-individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1
“But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others….
Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.
And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.”
Note the words, “not a legal requirement.” Nobody was going to be punished for not complying. Nobody was going to be forced to go against their personal beliefs. No choices were being taken away. That’s the difference between a Republican “mandate” and a Democratic one.
“And if the Republicans proposed it, it must be a good idea! Is that what you’re saying?”
That is the typical standing…
Rich do yourself a favor. Do some research. In Canada one of the top three reasons for BK is medical bills. The problem doesn’t go away with the governments involvment.
Zach, what does Burger King have to do with this topic?
BK=bankruptcy.
That’s true, sorry.
In any case, I should have prefaced my comment with “sarcasm alert!”.
I see that, once again, Zack is referencing a quasi-fact with no sources to support his contention.
FYI – medical expenses is the number one cause of personal BKs in the US by a very large margin. In Canada, it may be the third cause and may still only be a factor in a very small number of BKs. We don’t know because Zack has not provided a source for his claim.
“medical expenses is the number one cause of personal BKs in the US by a very large margin”
Are you sure, Rich?
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/august/the-medical-bankruptcy-myth/
When it comes to cancer, it is Ray:
http://www.giveforward.com/blog/medical-expenses-top-cause-of-bankruptcy-in-the-united-states
That wasn’t the discussion, Morris. It was to directly contradict what Rich said. Clealry, medical expenses are NOT a top cause of bankruptcy in this country, per my link.
Just because my link specifies medical bankruptcies as a result of cancer related expenses doesn’t make it irrelevant, Ray.
Sorry, Ray, your AEI story is not the powerful rebuttal you claim it is. Indeed, the argument deteriorates towards unfounded assertions: “On the rare occasion that medical debts do partially contribute to bankruptcy, they likely accumulate from patients’ demands for the kinds of expensive, cutting-edge or end-of-life treatments that would never be covered by government insurance anyway. It is a fact that many of these same types of expensive treatments are increasingly not insured by government healthcare in Canada.” There is absolutely NO foundation of evidence for that assertion.
I’ll give you credit for trying…
I didn’t say your link was irrelevant Lori. Simply said that overall medical bankruptcies are not nearly as prevalant as Rich says they are.
And Jeff..please refute the others linked in my link who give sound reasoning on statistics regarding this subject directly refuting what Rich claims…
Clealry,(sic) medical expenses are NOT a top cause of bankruptcy in this country, per my link.”
That’s pretty much saying my link is irrelevant, Ray, especially since my link says the opposite of what you contend.
Rich, first off its Zach, not Zack. Thanks.
Second, you are correct I did not post a link because a simple google search brings up more than enough articles to make my point. Again, that is why I said do a little more research. You saw one article and assumed it to be the absolute case, which obviously it is not. So, go ahead and just google it.
That’s because it is
“I didn’t say your link was irrelevant Lori.”
“That’s because it is.”
Make up your mind Ray, which is it?
That’s the thing Ms Henning: no one who works at a company that offers health insurance that covers birth control will be obligated to make use of that benefit. Further, if businesses still object to having to offer birth control coverage in their health insurance plans, they can self-insure or not offer health insurance at all. Barring those options, those businesses are going to be obligated to follow the same rules and regs ans any other business that employs and serves the public in a secular world.
That really is what this conversation is all about. To regulate choice until you have no choice. Whether it’s for religious beliefs, mandated regulation that is so costly businesses give into Obamas welfare healthcare.
If a business operates in the public arena, it must follow the same rules and regs as everyone else.
Those are the rules, Sue, like it or not.
And, good grief, no one is forcing anyone to open a business.
There in lays part of the problem. Neither of you have had your own business. With or without employees. Well?
Yet you have no problem extended your hand out expecting someone else to pay for something you won’t yourself.
Good grief!
No one forced you to go into business, Sue.
The AEI hardly qualifies as an objective and unbiased source of information.
Did you even read the link I provided – which comes from an objective source?
Here’s what I got out of the AEI source, Rich:
David Himmelstein, Deborah Thorne, Elizabeth Warren, and Steffie Woolhandler authored the studies which have been used as evidence to support the proposition that medical expenses are a leading cause of personal bankruptcy filings, in order to propose that the US have a national single-payer plan like Canada’s.
David Dranove and Michael Millenson in Health Affairs and the American Enterprise Institute’s Aparna Mathur have examined the previous studies with a mind to rebut their claims. Here’s where Ray’s source gets interesting:
“Dranove and Millenson critically analyzed the data from the 2005 edition of the medical bankruptcy study. They found that medical spending was a contributing factor in only 17 percent of U.S. bankruptcies. They also reviewed other research, including studies by the Department of Justice, finding that medical debts accounted for only 12 percent to 13 percent of the total debts among American bankruptcy filers who cited medical debt as one of their reasons for bankruptcy.”
Those are the ONLY hard numbers in the linked story. I would argue that 17 percent (bankruptcies in which medical spending was a contributing factor) is pretty significant. As I noted above Skinner could not avoid unwarrranted speculation: “On the rare occasion that medical debts do partially contribute to bankruptcy, they likely accumulate from patients’ demands for the kinds of expensive, cutting-edge or end-of-life treatments that would never be covered by government insurance anyway. It is a fact that many of these same types of expensive treatments are increasingly not insured by government healthcare in Canada.”
Ray’s AEI link is not useless, just slanted. I will confess I didn’t read your link, Rich: I trust your sources of information, and will ALWAYS dig into a rightie source, because they are usually such weak evidence, and I have so much fun pointing out how weak and slanted the source material is which our rightie colleagues rely upon!
In other words, 17 % Is a “significant” number for bankruptcies, yet still not near the number one reason people go bankrupt, which was the reason I posted, AND refuted Rich’s info.
And FYI? I distrust proggies sources probably moreso than you do conservative sources.
Take THAT, Jeff and Rich.
And I would argue that Harvard is a leftist think tank, as well as CNN, if you two want to play the “slant” game.
What makes Rich’s link any more credible, other than your own leftist bias? Evidence, please…
Sheesh, Ray, Rich’s CNN story had this:
“Woolhandler and her colleagues surveyed a random sample of 2,314 people who filed for bankruptcy in early 2007, looked at their court records, and then interviewed more than 1,000 of them.
“They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.”
There is SO MUCH MORE information in Rich’s link than in your AEI story that the contrast is stunning. And Ray, the information was right there in the CNN story: I don’t have to go jumping through multiple links.
And for what it’s worth, I find CNN to be more credible as an unbiased news source than the AEI, and I’ll take the work of Harvard researchers over some hack at a right-wing think tank any day.
Did any of you stop to think about your taxes paying for health care coverage for elected officials?? Well, it does. Now, I imagine there has been a female elected official or the spouse of and elected official for whom you have paid their birth control…and possibly their D&C and/or abortion. You don’t hear too much about that. I remember reading recently about Rick Santorum’s wife having an abortion to save her life. Taxpayer’s most likely paid for that procedure. Did you ever think about that?? And another thing. If abortion’s are immoral and against ‘God’s will’ why on earth would taxpayer’s have to pay for erection dysfunction medication–obviously God meant for men to have a limp you know what or he wouldn’t have done that to men. I personally don’t want to pay for something that is against God’s will–dysfunctional erections. So, next time you get all huffy puffy about birth control for women think about those things, because obviously you haven’t.
So the Church of Rome (and some other minor minions) feel that their ‘Freedom of Religion’ has been restricted? That’s an odd way to misread that portion of the First Amendment which says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
There is no way that making the employer (The Church of Rome) provide complete coverage to its employees a prohibition of the free exercise of their religion. The Church of Rome can still ask that their followers amongst that group, cast aside the benefits that most Americans have available to them. It is disturbing though that the Church of Rome would attempt to exercise control over people who are not of their flock. This attempt at undue control of the Church over the State, is specifically why our ancestors came to these shores and eventually embraced that ‘Wall of Separation’ that became enshrined in our Constitution. The First Amendment was never intended to allow the mandate of one church or group of churches to hold sway over a portion of the population.
Hooray to Joyce for being so diplomatic.