Please help me understand the co-called controversy around the birth control compromise

[sudopod]

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2012, 02:48 PM - Edit history (2)

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the new rules would not force the Church, or any employer, to fund insurance coverage for contraception. However, it will require the insurance provider to contact the employee and offer them sidecar coverage independently of the employer.

If I am not mistaken about the above, then why does the employer get to say anything? The Catholic Church, for example, would not have to pay one red cent for those nasty birth control medications. Why the moral panic?

If the church is not being forced to finance something they dislike, and they aren't up in arms on account of a desire to impose their doctrines on free American citizens, then what am I missing?

EDIT: See Post 12 for an excellent synopsis.

EDIT 2: As posters downthread have noted, depending on how many transfers of ownership we follow the money through we are all fourth or fifth order purchasers of nuclear weapons and cluster bombs. No "serious people" worry about the problems Quakers would have with that, though. Clearly, there is a level of "laundering" (for lack of a better term) that makes these purchases acceptable from a "freedom of conscience" perspective. The only question is how many steps will make everyone happy.

[Drale]

1. The only way to explain it is if you where completely and utterly insaine. /nt

[liberal N proud]

2. Obama proposed it, the right wing and their media pundits want to make it an issue

Yep, I think that pretty much covers it.

Oh wait, the Bishops want to oppress women, not just women in the Catholic faith but all women.

That should do it.

[gratuitous]

3. The nontroversy has been re-framed as a religious freedom issue

Nobody anywhere is forcing anyone anywhere to take birth control pills, hysterical ranting from the usual suspects notwithstanding. The nontroversy is over paying for insurance coverage that includes birth control for women employees. Whether a woman has a prescription for birth control or not, she gets that coverage benefit. She also gets coverage for prostate exams, but nobody seems to be advocating for the surgical implantation of prostate glands in women, so that doesn't seem to have made any difference to anyone. Yet.

The curious thing is that insurance coverage that includes birth control is cheaper than a plan that doesn't include birth control. Women who have access to the full coverage of all their medical needs tend to cost less than women who don't. The next phase of this nontroversy will be over the higher cost to cover women for insurance that doesn't cover birth control, just you wait and see.

This is stove-piping of the worst sort, and the popular media have collectively decided to just throw up their hands and report on the issue in a way that is at odds with reality, but pleasing to a certain reactionary segment of the population. Why would they do this? Nobody can say.

[sudopod]

5. nontroversy is one of my favorite neologisms. :D

I don't see how they have even that leg to stand on, though, if the birth control is purchased independently from the insurer by the employee. The rule change will require the insurer to contact such an employee and offer a birth control side car coverage option. Isn't that all that the new rules do, or is there something else?

[Sparkly]

4. Wouldn't it be great if we could ALL refuse to pay for things we disagree with?

Weapons of mass destruction are against my religion. Ta-da.

It's all topsy-turvy -- instead of being about women's rights to adequate health care, it's about the church's "right" to take away their right.

[smirkymonkey]

9. Great post Sparkly!

very well put.

[Brettongarcia]

15. Here's a case: what if I'm a pacifist Quaker? Can I refuse to pay any taxes, that go the military?

Can I refuse to pay the portion of my income tax, that supports the Defense Department?

It's my religion!

Help! The government is not honoring my religion. It is forcing me to pay for things that I morally oppose.

[sudopod]

21. First question:

How many lawyers can you afford?

Second question:

What's your budget for campaign donations?

Seriously, though, the things you said, that's really where the disconnect lies, isn't it?

[Aerows]

6. Because it's an opportunity for the GOP

to pitch a fit about something and make political hay over a social issue since they have absolutely no ideas for fixing anything else. People aren't bringing up that there are medical reasons for some women to be on birth control, but that's pretty much normal for our media. Anything to let Republicans crow about a social issue that really isn't a social issue.

Well, and I've come to the conclusion that the Catholic church just plain hates women. That's what happens I guess when you have an organization that doesn't believe in it's officials getting married - you get a bunch of men who dislike women. I wish they would get some men that don't want to rape children instead, prosecute the ones who do rape children and clean up around their own front door before they start trying to dictate to American women.

They are the last organization that should be considered a moral authority at this point on anything, considering how they have covered for pedophiles.

EDIT: Oh, and let me point out that every woman in America with a grain of sense knew that this was exactly where the entire abortion debate was really going. Once they start attacking abortion, they just can't help themselves and go after birth control. There is a segment of the population that can't wait for women to be barefoot and pregnant which is where they think all women belong.

[sudopod]

9. The idea that McConnel actually cares one way or another is pretty funny.

You can tell he's shooting from the hip and hasn't actually bothered to educate himself about what the fuss is all about. Obama bad, religion good. Yay America!

[bowens43]

7. the controversy has been manufactured by the media and the cons

for the vast majority of people including the vast majority of Catholics, there is no controversy .

[sudopod]

8. I just don't understand their argument at all.

Usually, I can manage to put myself in their headspace and see where they are coming from. After the compromise rule change, this just doesn't make any sense as a "freedom of religion" argument.

[gratuitous]

11. The argument doesn't make sense

But don't expect the Bulldogs of the Fourth Estate to tell you that. They've already gone in the tank on the issue, and accepted that providing insurance that includes birth control coverage is somehow the equivalent of force-feeding birth control pills to every man, woman and child on the planet. It's nonsense, but the popular media folks can't bring themselves to say that.

If a woman decides she doesn't want a prescription for birth control pills, she doesn't have to get one. Her insurance covers it anyway. There is no coercion, not one dime going to pay for birth control, and nobody has to get a prescription that doesn't want one. But the mere idea that some woman, somewhere, someday, might take a pill that keeps her from getting pregnant totally discombobulates a certain segment of our population. And the popular media kowtow to this discombobulation. Because of this, a whole host of opportunistic, cynical elected officials (many of whom should know better - looking at YOU Joe Biden) will jump on this crazy train and claim that their freedom of religion has somehow been abridged.

[zipplewrath]

12. Close, but not quite

The employer can't be forced to pay for it, but the insurance company is required to incluide it for "no charge". It's not really "side car", it is just part of the policy.

The assertion is that the insurance company doesn't have to charge for it because it actually saves them money (because pregnant mothers are more expensive). As someone pointed out, however, it is costing them money because a large portion of the women were paying for it on their own, and now the insurance company will bear the costs. As such, the cost does ultimately get back to the employer.

Truth is, many of the really large institutions are "self insured", which is to say that they pay the total health care bill for their employees on their own. The hire an insurance company to manage it for them (and set up "networks" of doctors and such) but they get billed for the actual services delivered. So they'll pay for it in the aggregate. Now, again, the assertion will be made that their costs will actually be lower because pregnant mothers are so expensive. One can make an argument about this.

The problem is both real, and not nearly as "religious" as the GOP would like you to believe. The school, or hospital, isn't a "church" and it isn't a "religion". It's a school that charges money and pays salaries. The churches could easily avoid this if alll of the "employees" were nuns or monks or something. (This is, by the way, how "church schools" started out. Somewhere along the line they started hiring teachers instead of ordaining them). But since in this modern age, no one has demonstrated a way to actually run a hospital with monks alone, the churches found themselves in the "hospital business". You want to run a business in this country, we can't be handing out advantages based upon religious affiliation or the next thing you know, GM will be taken over by the Scientologists.

The first amendment covers peoples abilities to worship as they please. It doesn't really create a separate economy where churches are somehow exempt from the laws of the land. It's not church contributions that are paying the bills at hospitals, and even at Notre Dame. It is the money they charge for the hospital services, or the tuition. They want to go totally "nonprofit" and operate completely off of the basket they pass around at church, they might have a leg to stand on. They want to run hospitals that charge insurance companies for services rendered, they have to be treated like any other business. Their nonprofit status will only cover their tax burden, it doesn't make them a religion.

[sudopod]

16. This is hugely informative.

You are awesome and should feel awesome.

[Marrah_G]

24. We get it with no co-pay here in MA

I assume it is something modeled after that?

[zipplewrath]

28. you're talking the patient side

The kerfluffle is about the employer sided. Contraception is considered "preventative" health care and HCR wanted that covered at "100%" by the plans.

[Marrah_G]

30. It's all so damned confusing

This is why we need single payor

[unblock]

13. here's their (ridiculous) argument:

bottom line is that someone's paying for it and if it isn't the woman, then it's the church.

essentially they're saying that the cost of hormone pills is in being buried in the premiums, and if the empoyer is paying for a percentage of the premiums, then they are paying for a portion of hormone pills.

it's not a far step from arguing that if any of their employees uses any portion their paycheck to pay for drugs or prostitutes or contributions to democratic politicians, then the church is funding all manner of eeeevvil.


afaik, they're free to reduce the employer share of premums to zero and avoid the problem entirely. but exercising religious freedom by abstaining from something they regard as sinful is not a concept the church understands.

[sudopod]

18. Your third paragraph really nails it.

It's no different than if their employee went out and bought a heathen idol for their living room. What level of control does the employer get over workers' lives?

[Brettongarcia]

14. Actually, it was a pretty good deal; and the Chruch wasn't entirely closed to it.

We were close to a deal; then it broke down. For the time being. Could this deal be resurrected?

What went wrong? In fact, the first Catholic response called it "a step in the right direction." Then? It seemed to back away, insisting that it was still opposed to abortion. But actually? This deal might still be there.

The problem was that the public doesn't quite understand the Church, and the way it talks. What the Church might have meant, was to 1) agree to the deal. While 2) noting that however, it still was against contraception as a matter of principle.

That is? The Church maybe, wanted to agree that 1) in this practical matter, it would cave. Since after all, it wouldn't be involved in selling or advocating contraception. Though 2) ultimately, it had to, as a matter or principle, disagree with the overall goal.

In short? It would allow others to get reproductive services, somewhere else. Though it did not like the idea. And felt it had to state moral objections.

That was the original deal that was offered. And that original deal MIGHT be brought back. In spite of recent absolutist rhetoric.

[HereSince1628]

17. Part of it is that money is fungible and this looks like a shell game/smoke and mirrors accounting

to the conservative anti-contraception league.

This isn't a completely irrational argument. If all the money paid out comes from employers its could be seen as just a shuffling of money from one hand to another, a game of creative accounting...as Paul Ryan says. Claiming that the employer hasn't provided funds for the insurance company to provide coverage for contraception is not a tack that the pro-contraception league should take. The question is whether other factors negate this view, most importantly, the question of whether an employer/client of the insurance company has ANY standing to influence how money belonging to an insurance company is moved around by an insurance company

I don't really know what the internal argument of the WH is, but to make it not be a game of obfuscation it must work something like this...Providing contraception coverage has become a sin que non condition of being a health insurer. It is a mandate on insurers, NOT the employers who contract with them.

It seems to be based on the idea that money controlled by the insurance company is NOT money subject to control by ANY interest of the employer-client.

But, again, it's plain that the controversy is being pushed because money is money and one dollar is completely fungible with another dollar. The anti-contraception league thus argues that this is just a game of shuffling various values in individual t-accounts to create an appearance that employers aren't paying for contraception. And it's undeniably true that the insurance companies must pay real money for any coverage they supply the insured.

It will be interesting to see if the new regulation holds up against what will be a barrage of iterations of the fungibility argument over the next several months.

[sudopod]

19. As a poster upthread noted, depending on how many transfers of ownership we follow the money through

we are all fourth or fifth order purchasers of nuclear weapons and cluster bombs. No "serious people" worry about the problems Quakers would have with that, though. Clearly, there is a level of "laundering" (for lack of a better term) that makes these purchases acceptable from a "freedom of conscience" perspective. The only question is how many steps will make everyone happy.

[HereSince1628]

25. I appreciate the 'laundering argument' but I think the question hinges on a single question

The question, and it's a good one to hit conservatives with, is whether a consumer actually has an interest in what a corporation does with its money?

I think conservatives would mostly say, NO. In this respect it seems to me that the Obama administration is using conservative arguments against conservatives.

And, they would say NO because they see boycotts and consumer actions as indecent actions by Leftwingers that interfere with profit making.


and just as a FWIW, insurance companies make lots of money from investments. These "new" money streams aren't really 'attached 'to the ethical convictions of consumers but rather the investment strategies of the insurance co.

[Brettongarcia]

20. Major consumers of insurance services, often negotiate their own independent deal

!

[HereSince1628]

26. BUT, if a sine qua non for being a health insurer

is providing contraception, health insurers will have to deal with this federal regulation if they want to be part of this VERY lucrative business arena.

It wouldn't be possible to negotiate it away and do business, THAT is, after all is said and done, the apparent point of this new regulatory policy.

Health insurance companies desperately want to be part of the very lucrative business of funding US healthcare. They'll cough up the peanuts for contraception in order to have access to the fertile fields of that domain.

and FWIW, the cost of contraception is tiny compared to the cost of a pregnancy. The costs/benefits ratio of providing contraception is actually quite favorable for the insurance company.

[JVS]

22. Basically it's the employer being picky about how he spends the money you earned.

[sudopod]

23. LOL

Can't wait to use than on the Facebook Ronulans.

[markpkessinger]

27. An Episcopal priest friend of mine has summarized the absurdity of the RC bishops' position well...

... He writes:

So, if I've got this right, any Jehovah Witness-sponsored organization should have the right to insist that its secular employees should not be covered for blood transfusions; 7th Day Adventists should be able not to allow same to be covered for hospital food containing meat, and Jews and Muslims, pork.

Where will it all end?

Where, indeed?

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. If they're sensible, they already pay for full health packages

Nicholas Kristof thought to ask someone:

So, does America’s national health policy really need to make a far-reaching exception for Catholic institutions when a majority of Catholics oppose that exception?

I wondered what other religiously affiliated organizations do in this situation. Christian Science traditionally opposed medical care. Does The Christian Science Monitor deny health insurance to employees?

“We offer a standard health insurance package,” John Yemma, the editor, told me.

That makes sense. After all, do we really want to make accommodations across the range of faith? What if organizations affiliated with Jehovah’s Witnesses insisted on health insurance that did not cover blood transfusions? What if ultraconservative Muslim or Jewish organizations objected to health care except at sex-segregated clinics?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/kristof-beyond-pelvic-politics.html

While Christian Science has, to my mind, wacky views on medicine, they own a newspaper, and they seem fine to allow the employees to use modern medical science. But the CSM comes across as a decent, independent newspaper, so I guess the owners (a CS society) are not dogmatic about what their business does.

[sudopod]

31. exactly nt

[Brettongarcia]

32. So? The original compromise offer was pretty good; the Church should reconsider

The Church withholding reproductive funding to be sure, is questionable.

But? If the difference is immediately made up in some way, by OTHERS providing contraceptive ins. for those who want it? Either as part of the package, funded by the insurance company. Or better, as a sidecar. Then?

Then the deal looks good. The Church in no way supported or funded contaception.

Though those employees who wanted it, were able to get it.

The Church might not LIKE the last provision. But that's Freedom of Religion. And in the past, the Church has at times, acknowledged that freedom.