<p>Insurers don’t “pick up the costs” for anything. They pass along the costs to the employer or employee. That’s why the “compromise” is such a joke, and why the bishops and other religious employers aren’t buying it. </p>
<p>Let’s face it – if insurers could save money by covering contraception, they would do so without any mandate. Insurers know that the women most likely to use contraception correctly (thereby actually preventing pregnancy) are ALREADY using it at their own expense. There is no economic incentive for insurance companies to offer it for “free” with no co-pay or deductible. Hence the politically-motivated mandate. And the ever-growing deficit…</p>
<p>Also, if it’s essential to you that you not be sexually harassed at work, you should quit the job with Feely McHands and find another job! And if it’s essential to you that you be paid overtime when you work overtime, why are you working for Mr. Sleazy? And why are you working in that dangerous mine with no legally-mandated safeguards, when you could just go become a hedge fund manager instead?</p>
<p>“If you choose to work for a Catholic institution that follows Church teachings, then the consequence is that your employer will not pay for your contraception.”</p>
<p>Look - that’s straight up not true. All of those Catholic institutions believe they are following Church teachings and ARE paying for contraception. Hundreds and hundreds of them, covering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of employees and students, Catholic and not Catholic alike. </p>
<p>What you want is for the government to meddle in religion, and decide for you which institutions are really Catholic and which ones are not. Why should the government do the work that the elderly men in dresses refuse to do? If they aren’t happy with those institutions, let them force Catholic Charities, Catholic Social Services, and, yes, Catholic Churches to change their names. Oh, and they can close up their chapels at Catholic colleges and universities, too. But they won’t do it. They care more about money and their “good name” than they do about their so-called “doctrine”.</p>
<p>No, Claremarie. You are just logically, factually wrong. The bcp is not a “substitute” for treatment of women’s health problems. It is a treatment. Women who are not sexually active get bcpills for treatment of acne, migraines, heavy periods, etc. ALL THE TIME. That’s not “ob-gyns being lazy” - it’s known as proper medical treatment. If you don’t like it, take it up with ACOG.</p>
<p>Wow, just wow. I just had a follow up appt. with a breast surgeon today. I’ve now had four different doctors in different specialties suggest a low dosage of BCP for some medical issues I’ve been having (I’m seeing a fifth one tomorrow) for a year and a half. I will not give any details as it is TMI, but the fact that it’s a breast surgeon should suffice; we’re not talking about some lazy OB-GYN. Oh, FWIW, two of those specialists are professors at one of the best teaching hospitals in the midwest. And those BCP may just prevent (hopefully) an MRI and/or eventual surgery. Don’t you think those doctors would be making a lot more money if they jumped right to the MRI and/or surgery?</p>
<p>Luckily we DO have coverage for BCP through H’s employer. But what if he worked for a different employer (not too far fetched since he works in health care and there are a lot of takeovers going on) who was about to be bought out by a Catholic institution (which is happening all around us here in the Chicago area). In my case, if it is decided low-dose BCP are the best answer for right now (remember, tomorrow the 5th doctor will likely agree), and H’s employer didn’t cover it, I’d be OK to have to pay full price. But for those people who work at the same employer who are not as fortunate to make the salary H does (a large majority), the closest PP is across the WI state line, 30 miles away; to stay in the state of IL, it would be about 40 miles; that’s more than a couple of bus rides. That’s a whole-day expedition. And that’s living in a major metropolitan area, Chicago! I can’t even imagine what it’s like if I lived in a rural area.</p>
<p>clare, if I don’t take birth control, I get rushed to the ER every few months because I have ruptured ovarian cysts. I cannot begin to describe to you the pain of that or the staggering cost to the insurance company. Birth control keeps these in check because the “natural” process of ovulation doesn’t happen for someone with my condition. Medication for my condition is ALSO used to stop women from getting pregnant but that is not its only function. Why should I have to jump through hoops to get something medically necessary simply because it is used for a completely different purpose by other people?</p>
<p>You probably don’t know anyone who has a severe condition that can really only be managed by birth control (or getting ovaries removed which, at 21, is not something I’m prepared to do). You probably don’t know what it’s like to go to the ER every few months and be told (more than once) that you might be getting rushed to surgery- from something that is almost entirely preventable with something as simple as a small, daily pill. </p>
<p>WHY should anyone be able to tell me that they won’t cover my condition, essentially that it’s not important, simply because the treatment is used for another purpose by other people? If this were almost anything other than BIRTH CONTROL, it would seem like a ridiculous issue.</p>
<p>What Pizzagirl says is perfectly correct, but the directive, rightly, applies also to prescription methods of contraception like IUDs and Norplant, that have (AFAIK) no medical use other than prevention of pregnancy.</p>
<p>Rarely are they contested. When there are legislative expansions of INDIVIDUAL rights in the practice of religion, there are rarely people who will come forward to contest them. The key is it has to be the actual practice of religion. Even then, the Scalia rule would apply:</p>
<p>"(Laws)are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."</p>
<p>It really is settled law. There are a hundred years of decisions on just this subject.</p>
<p>But the relevant issue is whether an Amish-owned business like a deli could avoid paying the employer’s portion of payroll taxes. I suspect not. I suspect the minute a non-Amish employee brought the situation to the attention of the IRS, IRS agents would be paying a visit to the business owner.</p>
<p>I did research the IRS code. Amish employees of Amish employers can request an exemption from paying payroll taxes, on the grounds that they’re Amish and won’t be collecting benefits. If they are granted the exemption, then their employers can also avoid paying the employer’s part of the payroll taxes.</p>
<p>But this only applies to Amish employees of Amish employers. The Amish employer would still have to pay payroll taxes for all non-Amish employees. And Amish employees working for non-Amish businesses still pay payroll taxes. </p>
<p>So, if we wanted to make an analogy to the Catholic hospitals, then we’d say that a Catholic employee working for a Catholic hospital could apply not to pay the cost of adding contraception protection to her insurance policy. (That cost is, as we know, zero.) Then her employer would be able to save that (zero) cost as well. And all the other employees would still be able to get contraception if they wanted it.</p>
<p>And that’s exactly what we have done. Hurray! No observant Catholic employee is required to use contraception. Any other employee is entitled to preventative services including contraception in their employer-provided health insurance.</p>
<p>As far as the federal government is concerned, the Smith case several of you keep citing has been superseded by the RFRA. That act requires a ‘compelling government interest’ before a religious group can be forced to comply with a law that goes against their beliefs. for example, the Amish do not have to send their children to school to the same age as everyone else. There was no ‘compelling’ interest in the government forcing Amish children to attend high school. I do not think that courts will find any ‘compelling’, a pretty strong word, interest in providing free contraceptives in violation of religious beliefs.</p>
<p>No one in the United States has to send their child to school at any age. It can be for religious or non-religious reasons. I was a homeschooling parent in two different states and both times the exemption was for non-religious reasons. </p>
<p>Why would the religious beliefs of an employer trump a woman’s right to basic health care services? As we’ve seen offered as an example, many women use bcp for non-contraception related reasons, what about those women?</p>
<p>I’d expect a high degree of correlation between people who choose to pay for health insurance, and people who are most likely to use bc correctly. So yes, the insured were going to go right along buying it on their own nickel regardless.</p>
<p>But there’s another possible reason. Using bc properly does save insurers money, but offering as a standard on every policy would–as we’re seeing now–have raised the ire of the Catholic Church. And probably have raised the ire of various social conservative politicians and groups, who would complain that covering bc for free is sanctioning all sorts of immoral, quote unquote, behavior. Easier to just offer bc as an add-on rather than a basic benefit.</p>
<p>I’d be interested in hearing how Catholic hospitals and colleges handle some other issues. For instance, my (non-Catholic) employer, like many others (Catholic and not), pays me when I’m on jury duty. Can a Catholic employer who otherwise pays for jury duty refuse to pay when the case is a potential death penalty verdict? In states where same-sex marriage is legal, can Catholic employers refuse to pay spousal benefits for same-sex spouses? How about spousal benefits when one spouse is formerly divorced?</p>
<p>We’re just an unfortunate by-product. We should just suffer through or spend a day or two off work trying to find someone who MIGHT fill our prescription without insurance. Or we should just find a different job- afterall, that’s easy in this economy.</p>