<p>
</p>
<p>Bay, sorry, I’m having a hard time unpacking this. Are you saying that men should oppose the availability of bc because they have no choice about parenthood once a woman is pregnant?</p>
<p>No ST I meant the opposite; I said it in a grammatically mangled way. Sorry.</p>
<p>So, the one thing I wonder, since people Keep bringing up that this is a “political” thread is how did women’s access to health insurance WITH bcp coverage BECOME a political issue?</p>
<p>It is the “only” thing that people want to specifically ban from coverage, that and abortion. Why are these political issues?</p>
<p>They are religious issues, not poltical issues. Religion has no place in politics.</p>
<p>But, and more importantly, religion has no place in medical issues.</p>
<p>Health care has gotten too expensive in this country and, in no other civilized country in the world is universal coverage not available. </p>
<p>So, politics, money, religion all meet in this one place, and in this one place, a group of men, there’s only one woman even really publicly being spoken to about this right now, want to get together and somehow, desperately, once again, grab for control over the only thing men don’t control in the entire world. A woman’s reproductive life.</p>
<p>This should be about “as” political as medical interventions for premature ejaculations and ED issues. Yet, NOBODY cares about what men do with their … politically. why IS that?</p>
<h1>123 excellent post, poetgirl</h1>
<p>Very well put, poet. Spot on IMO</p>
<p>What I don’t get is how someone (=an employer) can think that their religious beliefs trump public policy. If religious beliefs get to trump all, then what prevents me as an employer from claiming that they have religious beliefs that mean that they’ll only offer insurance to white employees but not black ones, or only pay minimum wage to white employees but not black ones, or only include family coverage for families in which the children are being raised in that same religion? I just don’t get the argument that religious belief should enable an opt-out. Anyone can claim anything is a religious belief.</p>
<p>Decades ago as a young and foolish lawyer, I represented a business that wanted to avoid safety regulations. I incorporated it as a “church” which then claimed that its activities were exempt because they were an exercise the religious beliefs of the participants.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t make that argument (or take that client) today. (Sometimes you actually do get wiser with age. :)) But in a way it made even more sense than the argument being made for the Catholic universities and hospitals, etc., because the activity itself was claimed to be an integral part of the religious experience, whereas in the current situation the church simply wants to dictate to its employees and students about secular financial issues that are outside of the religious activities of the church.</p>
<p>Well, yeah, and then, let’s say a religiously affiliated organization such as Georgetown wants to refuse to offer a plan which includes birth control to its students and employees? Fine. BUT, you can’t have it both ways. You don’t want insurance coverage for legal women’s birth control, you cannot have federal or state money of ANY kind. No grants, no financial aid, nothing. No taxpayer dollars if you “really” want seperation of “church” and state.</p>
<p>But, it’s not what they want.</p>
<p>A few years ago a bunch of Georgetown students attempted to become a religious order. Their problem? The local zoning laws prohibited more than a certain number of unrelated people living together. The town didn’t want frat houses and rowdy party houses full of students. One student’s parents had bought him a townhouse of some type and he wanted his 4 or 6 roommates (I’m not sure of the exact number).</p>
<p>So… they attempted to label it a monastic dwelling to get around the zoning laws with a religious exemption. Hahahaha. They lost!</p>
<p>
This particular issue seems to be to be one in which the slippery slope falls away towards both sides, though. That should also be a concern.</p>
<p>It’s a precarious slope to tread, indeed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>sopranomom, I think there’s a good chance that once the exchanges get up and running, and it starts to become evident that “Obamacare” actually is giving millions of people much better options than they currently have – then resistance to reform will start to crumble. </p>
<p>Many people are afraid of the ACA for the simple reason that they don’t know what it is. Polls consistently show that people like the major features of the Act – extended coverage for children, disallowing denial for pre-existing conditions, etc. But they’ve been told to fear the Act itself, and up till now, they’ve only heard the lies about “death panels” and “socialized medicine.” When they start hearing instead that their cousin Suzy was able to get much better coverage, and their buddy Joe is saving a lot of money on premiums, and their Uncle Bill got affordable coverage despite a preexisting condition – that’s when the tide of public opinion will start to turn. </p>
<p>There will always be people who insist on clinging to a system that harms them. But we’ve seen several times in the last year, and as recently as yesterday, that even corporate giants can’t stand against massive public sentiment. Americans will figure out quickly enough that the free-market free-for-all which we currently have is a bad thing for them. </p>
<p>Anthem et al may continue to exist in some form. But they will no longer be the tail that wags the entire healthcare system.</p>
<p>
You know, I’m just going to go waaaaay out on a limb here and suggest that there’s some rule, or law, or regulation, or something, that requires any college which fields a football team to provide helmets for the players. And at no cost to the players, either. </p>
<p>I don’t know - maybe it’s unconstitutional, or “overregulation”, or a violation of the right of a college’s governors to do whatever they thinks is best, but I’m just saying – as much as it might come as a shock to you, I’m pretty sure that they are already required to do that. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are probably right. I’m sure we have to mandate that a school cares more about a kids head than the kid or the parent do, that a school is responsible for the rules and risks of football because it is way above the ability of the parents and the kids to make an informed choice. Time to accept that people of all ages, socioeconomic status, race, place or origin, education level, family status, sexual orientation, indigenous or indigenous oppressor, legal or not, etc. are way waaaaaay to dumb to make these decisions for themselves, their children, their families. We need someone to parent us throughout our whole lives. And, I can not think of anyone better than our elected officials to assume this task. The more they take care of the better we can all sleep at night, the less worries we have and the less decisions we need to make. </p>
<p>Now…off to watch a reality TV show…</p>
<p>dietz, why stop there? Why not wipe all traffic laws off the books? Surely we don’t need elected officials to parent us on the road.</p>
<p>Just curious. Do you know the exclusions for your policy? Is abortion an exclusion or a covered benefit?</p>
<p>LasMa…there is a world of difference between the interaction on a public road (aka rules of football) and type of car one drives (need for equipment). Actually, that is not a bad idea…let’s mandate that all cars must pass an inspection every year ( or more often depending on weather conditions) to ensure tire tread, brake pad level, functioning windows and doors, etc. Everytime you go to get gas, you must pass a safety inspection. This could create jobs too…what a win.</p>
<p>Hey, let’s do what Germany does, if your exhaust is over a certain level of pollution then you can not drive into many cities…no more taking the 1972 Chevy Malibu into downtown SF because you are a gross polluter. Can’t afford a better car…oh well…Maybe you are right, we do not regulate enough…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>good idea… I suggest that we start by getting rid of red light cameras.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“medically necessary” is not a universal term with one definition.</p>
<p>The way it would work in a free market is that employers can offer whatever plans they want, and then if they can’t get any employees because their plans suck, and they can’t sell their product because customers don’t want to support them, then they go out of business.</p>
<p>If 90% of Georgetown people want contraception covered, then they can go to their employer and demand it. And if they don’t get it, they can work elsewhere.</p>
<p>How many women, each year, try to become part of the Georgetown community? Obviously they don’t care about the health plan situation, or have decided that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is why the Blount Amendment, as worded, is so problematic. It’s so broadly worded that an employer’s objection doesn’t even have to be a “religious belief,” just a “deeply held moral conviction,” such as “my fat employee Al has been sucking down cheese burgers and fries at lunch everyday for all five of the years he’s worked for me. Therefore he only has himself to blame for his recent diabetes diagnoses. I refuse to pay for insurance that covers his insulin and supplies. He can damned well pay for that out of pocket.”</p>