<p>It’s not the insurance companies that are trying to control women and limit their rights. How could someone read this thread and come away with that?</p>
<p>lol sylvan.</p>
<p>"Can you actually cite me to a health plan that excludes vasectomies, gender reassignment surgery, or in vitro fertilization “for religious reasons?” "</p>
<p>All three of these procedures are contrary to Catholic teaching; therefore, they would be excluded, along with contraceptive services, from the health insurance plans of any Catholic employer committed to following Church teachings. </p>
<p>“That’s actually not an argument that anyone but you is making.”</p>
<p>No, actually quite a number of folks, some on this very board, have made this argument. Their response to the common-sense point that no woman is forced to work for religiously-affiliated employers who exclude contraceptive services from health insurance benefits is to claim that some unfortunate women are both unable to find employment elsewhere and presumably in dire need of employer-provided contraceptives, and that the mandate is essential to provide these women with “access” to contraceptives that they currently do not enjoy. </p>
<p>“Economically rational decisions are legal, but allowing a business to engage in an employment practice which discriminates against one sex is not - even if discriminating against one sex is part of the religious tradition of the owner of the business.”</p>
<p>Only women can conceive and bear children. Perhaps human biology “discriminates” against women, but these employment practices do not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^Doesn’t this statement come from a world view that the male experience is the norm and the female experience is “other” and must accommodate itself to the male norm?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Feminist</a> Perspectives on Power (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)](<a href=“http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-power/]Feminist”>Feminist Perspectives on Power (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy))</p>
<p>
As I said a bunch of pages back, imagine how this discussion might have gone if it had been about whether a Jehovah’s Witnesses charity had to pay for blood transfusions for employeees.</p>
<h1>751 - are you sure in the #750 plus comments the point about welfare and medicaid were never made?</h1>
<p>It was, and while that may not be the point you wanted to make, it is a relevant point. Your complaint was that posters who are pro BCP were being repetitive. You chose to only identify one of their points.</p>
<p>“Doesn’t this statement come from a world view that the male experience is the norm and the female experience is “other” and must accommodate itself to the male norm?”</p>
<p>No, it comes from the realities of human biology. Perhaps, to those who find gender discrimination behind every tree, that constitutes a “world view”?</p>
<p>Does a woman retain her “right to choose” birth control pills ONLY if she doesn’t have to pay for them?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, biology descriminates against MEN, in this case, which is why men are so desperate to control what women do about it. You sure got that one backwards.</p>
<p>It occurs to me that now that the HPV vaccine has been approved for both boys and girls, that might be an interesting test case for this quesiton. Would anybody like to defend the right of a religiously-affiliated employer to refuse to cover that vaccine on the grounds that it encourages promiscuity?</p>
<p>clairemarie: Do you support the Family and Medical Leave Act?
Just curious…</p>
<p>I wish I could believe that giving BCP to women would save insurance companies money, but I’d have to research, but I would think that some women would be on BCP when they’re younger, and then when they want to have children they get off the pill and have their children. That gives the insurance company a double whammy: they pay for BCP and then for the children. </p>
<p>But as I said, I’d have to research the statistics on this to see how many women on BCP do get off of it and have children later.</p>
<p>Yes, Ahl, and even now, women find themselves making slighly less than men make, largely due to childbearing issues. However, that is not a matter of biology discriminating against women. That is a matter of human failing. </p>
<p>I’m sure you know this.</p>
<p>poetgrL: what I find fascinating is how, even on this thread, the very words we use color our perception of reality… human biology “discriminates” against women. ??</p>
<p>okay - I have to go now, but can’t wait to read Kluge’s responses later on today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps we ought to just make women pay the full cost of bearing children, not let them spread it out over the years through their premium payments? Perhaps it is unimportant who pays for the men and women of the future to be born? Maybe women should pay for everything about the children, and then the children can support their mothers in their old age, and we can forget about medicare and social security for the future generations. </p>
<p>Yes. That would be best.</p>
<p>Let’s leave all childbearing costs with the women. And, you know what? I think public education is a complete waste of money. And who needs a police dept or a fire department? Who needs a military? Let the children defend only the mothers who brought them into the world. That makes sense. </p>
<p>You do realize most people are paying in the 5 digits for their insurance, have deductibles and co-pays, and are NOT using their preminiums or their income (employer paid) up in the process. sheesh.</p>
<p>My point in saying that was to show that paying for BCP might not always save the insurance companies money, and saving money/making profit is their goal. I just gave an example of how it could happen. Geez. The purpose of insurance isn’t necessarily to cover your every whim and wish, but to make themselves money , oh, and help you when you need it.</p>
<p>(Still looking for proof btw) :)</p>
<p>Proof of what?</p>
<p>I’ve never made the argument that BCP’s save insurance companies money.</p>
<p>I have said that they save society quite a bit of money, and cut down on the number of abortions significantly, as well. </p>
<p>And, yes, you are correct, the purpose of insurance companies is to make money, even those who claim to be non-profit, and they have no business in health care, or inbetween a woman and her doctor. </p>
<p>Single payor would solve this problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I said earlier, so I’m still looking for some stats on that. </p>
<p>Yes, single payer would solve that but that’s another issue.</p>
<p>Here you go, FutureWeatherman:
[Why</a> Free Birth Control Will Not Hike the Cost of Your Insurance | Moneyland | TIME.com](<a href=“http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/14/why-free-birth-control-will-not-hike-the-cost-of-your-insurance/]Why”>Why Free Birth Control Will Not Hike the Cost of Your Insurance | TIME.com)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Reason #3947 why we need single-payer. Because, FutureWeatherman, you are absolutely correct about the insurance companies’ goal. </p>
<p>But it’s not another issue as you suggest; our free-market model for ensuring that all of our citizens get healthcare simply is not working. It distorts EVERYTHING about healthcare in this country, right down to something as personal as who gets what birth control. This entire thread is just one more example – as if one were needed --of the fact that the system is broken beyond repair.</p>