Social Question

Dutchess_III's avatar

Do you think Church sponsored insurance would pay for vasectomies?

Asked by Dutchess_III (42286points) March 8th, 2012

Just crossed my mind so I posted it.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

80 Answers

WestRiverrat's avatar

My insurance won’t, why should the Church’s?

Like Lasik surgery it is considered an elective proceedure and so not covered by insurance.

bkcunningham's avatar

What is church sponsored insurance, @Dutchess_III?

wundayatta's avatar

My guess is it would depend on the church. If you mean the Catholics, then my gut says no. That would be getting in the way of what God wants, I would imagine. But what do I know? You could fit my knowledge of God into a quarter carat diamond thimble and still have room for the OED.

zenvelo's avatar

Which Church are you referring to?

I have never heard the Catholic Church say anything pro or con about vasectomies or tubal ligations.

saint's avatar

I understand why you asked. I think you are missing the political point.

Aethelflaed's avatar

No idea. I mean, I’d love it if they would, but I have no idea about the reality.

Grammar point: isn’t it always the Catholic Church when Church is capitalized? Are we ever referring to another church?

Qingu's avatar

Probably not.

Though I think it’s absurd to focus on the institution paying for the insurance rather than the individuals who would actually elect to use it or not. If you are against a medical procedure, the fact that your insurance covers it doesn’t mean you have to do it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@Aethelflaed… sorry. I forgot the “The”

@saint So splain the political point to me.

@Qingu Good point. I think it’s just the opposite. In the situation that is in the media now, the vast majority of people want the procedure (or medicine) but the All Mighty counsel, (probably all male,) says they can’t have it.

I’ve known 3 of men, 2 family members and one friend, who have had vasectomies, all for birth control reasons (although I may know many more but I just don’t know about it) and none of the 3 said they had to pay out of pocket for it. Having to pay out of pocket would be something they, or their wives, would complain about (at least to close friends and family members,) I’d think.

bkcunningham's avatar

@Dutchess_III, what is The Church sponsored insurance? Seriously, I have no idea what that means.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@bkcunningham You have to Google Rush Limbaugh to understand the fuss.

bkcunningham's avatar

Why is a student concerned about the insurance coverage of a university they are attending?

Dutchess_III's avatar

Ok. Guys, correct me if I’m wrong.
My understanding is, The Catholic Church is Big Business. They are, in spirit, a corporation. As such, they have employees. As such, they offer insurance benefits to their employees, like any large, profitable private or public company would do. Well, The Church is trying to control one particular benefit most insurance companies offer as a standard, and that is birth control. They’re trying to make it so that whatever insurance they offer their employees, that insurance will not cover birth control or birth control meds. It has been a pretty sore point, politically, because the government has the powa’ to tell The Church they don’t have the right to discriminate in that manner, especially because it is the Corporate Church Headquarters who want to prevent the BC benefit, NOT the employees.

Enter Sandra Fluke, a pre-law student at Georgetown University. From what I understand, Georgetown is a private university, Church sponsored, and they offer insurance. (This is where I get a little confused….I’ve never heard of a college offering insurance benefits to their students….maybe to their staff?) So Sandra Fluke testifies before congress about the need and the RIGHT for women, not just university women, but all women who are employees of The Church, to have birth control coverage as a logical extension of their overall insurance coverage, which they are paying premiums on.

Rush Limbaugh proceeded to call Ms. Fluke a slut and a prostitute for wanting or needing birth control just because she was a college student. He zeroed in on that fact and ignored all of the married women etc. who have reasons for choosing birth control rather than the Rabbit Method. AND, RL, being the idiot that he is, tried to make it sound like it was the tax payers who were being “forced” to pay for her BC, like she was a welfare recipient trying to get something for nothing, when it had nothing to do with the tax payers OR welfare.

So, it isn’t just about university students. It’s much broader than that.

As I said, correct me if I went wrong somewhere, guys.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@Dutchess_III You’re good.

Also – to the best of my knowledge, all colleges require students to have insurance. If they do not already have insurance (through a parent or employer, usually) they can buy a special plan through the university.

SpatzieLover's avatar

Under the new healthcare plan @Dutchess_III all erectile disfunction drugs and vasectomies would be covered. Will the church deny this coverage??? Not so far. The only sticking point so far is with BC.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Man, you’d think the Church would say ED is a punishment from God, so deal with it and confess (on video, preferably) whatever sin (slut!) brought it on.

This is just insane, you know?

bkcunningham's avatar

I think what is upsetting is not only is the POTUS telling The Church and other religious institutions they must provide medical insurance that provides free birth control, morning-after abortifacients and tubal ligations, but the POTUS is also telling companies what price they must set for their services.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Do you have a link to substantiate that claim?

Do you have a problem with insurance providing “tubal ligation” for men for birth control reasons? Or is it just the women who should be denied birth control at a reasonable price? And who ever said it was “free.”? The medicine I buy every month for my blood pressure isn’t free, but it’s a hell of a lot less than it would be if I had to pay for it our of pocket.
Why would birth control necessarily be free?

elbanditoroso's avatar

Sure but only one per person. And only for men.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yes @elbanditoroso. It’s OK for men because they can’t handle more than one child, and then only with an army of help. Women, on the other hand, can handle dozens all by themselves, with one had tied behind their back. It’s just in their nature. It’s in their genes. The Church recognizes those “natural” facts.

bkcunningham's avatar

That is exactly what all the controversy has been about, @Dutchess_III. From the White House website: “The President announces a new policy that will ensure that women have access to free preventive care, including contraception, no matter where she works. Religious employers will not be required to provide contraception, but insurance companies will be required to directly provide it to all women, free of charge…”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/02/10/president-obama-speaks-contraception-and-religious-institutions

bkcunningham's avatar

I don’t have a problem with insurance companies providing any service. That is not the issue. The issue is a private company being forced to provide certain services and a private company being forced to provide a “free” service. Of course, nothing is free. Someone has to pay.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Send me text I can read, @bkcunningham! I don’t have the time to sit through a video!

First, I’m pretty insurance companies do provide birth control benefits, whether it’s free or not. It’s a no brainer. It’s cheaper for them to prevent a pregnancy than to provide care for a pregnant woman AND the children who follow. The insurance companies are willing to provide it, but someone is trying to make it so that women do not have access to a benefit that is already PART of the insurance packet. it. Someone is trying to force the women to pay for it out of their own pocket, thereby hopefully preventing them from actually controlling the number of children they have. Do you think they have the right to do that? Are you OK with that?

Second, yes, someone has to pay, but it isn’t the tax payers. It’s the insured, who pay the premiums. And THEY are willing to pay for it.

The government is just trying to settle a dispute between some religious leaders (probably male) who want to control what women do with their bodies, and the woman who feel THEY should be in control of their own bodies.

The government didn’t just jump in the fray for no reason. They have nothing to gain from it.

Qingu's avatar

@bkcunningham, in a previous question you said your problem was a general one: you don’t think government should force private businesses to do anything, and “providing insurance” was merely one example.

I think you should clarify that you don’t actually oppose the HCR effects on religious or “freedom of speech” grounds, just good ol’ fashioned laissez-faire. You think the world would be a better place if employers did not have to pool certain insurance covereage for their employees and employees were on their own for coverage not offered by their job. Right?

Aethelflaed's avatar

@bkcunningham The morning-after pill is not an abortifacient. The morning after pill prevents a pregnancy, it does not end one.

bkcunningham's avatar

If you click on the link I provided, @Dutchess_III, from the White House’s website, it says, “Read transcript.” Here is the direct link to the transcript. I believe it is an important issue and one we should all be willing to read about.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/02/10/president-obama-speaks-contraception-and-religious-institutions#transcript

SpatzieLover's avatar

Nearly 99 percent of all women have relied on contraception at some point in their lives –- 99 percent. And yet, more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 have struggled to afford it. So for all these reasons, we decided to follow the judgment of the nation’s leading medical experts and make sure that free preventive care includes access to free contraceptive care.

Yep, that’s reason enough for me. So they can’t afford BC, so we should let them have kids they certainly can’t afford?

We’re all paying for this one way or another. I’d prefer to pay upfront at the discounted rate. Paying for 18yrs sounds like a bad idea to me.

dappled_leaves's avatar

I don’t understand why the phrase “free of charge” is being interpreted as “the taxpayer is paying for X”. It is to be provided “free of charge” from the insurance company. Presumably, that means the money is coming from the user’s insurance premiums. What’s the problem?

bkcunningham's avatar

@dappled_leaves, like I said before. I don’t have a problem with insurance companies providing any service. That is not the issue. The issue is a private company being forced to provide certain services and a private company being forced to provide a “free” service. Of course, nothing is free. Someone has to pay.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@bkcunningham They are being paid for, by the premiums. What’s really being eliminated are a) the companies’ option to just not cover contraception and b) the ability to make the patient pay a co-pay for it. But they still can, and will, charge premiums that will cover the cost of birth control. And this new rule applies to all preventative care, not just contraception.

bkcunningham's avatar

@Aethelflaed, Obama has ordered private health insurance companies to provide a free service. By what authority can he do this? That bothers me. Not to mention the entire individual mandate before the US Supreme Court now. Don’t get me wrong. I realize there are many things screwed up about our health system in America. I also realize there are also some really great things about our healthcare system. I’m all for an overhaul of the healthcare system in America. But not the mess we have now.

dappled_leaves's avatar

Oh good grief. He made major changes to the healthcare system. The insurance companies are lucky that they are still in business, given that the aim was to take away the ridiculous amount of power that they had over consumers. They are still going to make huge profits out of people’s illnesses, not to worry.

bkcunningham's avatar

If you think the discussion is about profits, to be honest, there isn’t any thing else I can say.

dappled_leaves's avatar

I actually don’t. I think it’s about free access to birth control, regardless of income. I thought you were arguing for the freedom of the insurance companies to choose what to cover. Such that, just like every other debate over American policy, it is an argument over how each party defines freedom, and who deserves it more.

As to what the insurance companies are made to cover, or are allowed to choose to cover, yes, profit is all they care about. It is not the insurance companies who are balking at covering birth control. It is the religious organizations who have insurance policies with those companies. Unless there are some specifically Catholic insurance companies out there that I’m unaware of…

bkcunningham's avatar

Just answer me this, @dappled_leaves, by what authority does President Obama have to force private insurance companies to provide free products?

dappled_leaves's avatar

I have no idea. I do know that there are several parts of the Affordable Care Act that would be beyond problematic if insurance companies could not be told what to cover and what not to cover – such as the ages below which children must be covered, and removing “pre-existing conditions” from the reasons not to cover clients. Are you arguing that the US government has no power to reform healthcare in your country? That seems rather unlikely to me.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@bkcunningham Again, the healthcare bill (not just Obama, but a majority of congress) hasn’t ordered them to provide a free service, but rather to stop charging a copay.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@bkcunningham There is nothing in it for the government. It only benefits the American people, so I don’t see what you’re all up in arms about.

bkcunningham's avatar

@Dutchess_III, in America, we are the government.

bkcunningham's avatar

@Dutchess_III, excuse me if you’ve answered this above and I’ve overlooked your answer. But, do you think Obama should mandate that physicians perform vasectomies or tubal ligations at no cost to people who want them?

wundayatta's avatar

Wait! Why are you introducing the idea of physicians being told to provide services for free? That’s coming out of left field. I thought we were talking about what kind of insurance would pay. No one said the docs had to work for free. Did I miss something?

Dutchess_III's avatar

@wundayatta (whenever I start to address you I keep starting with @D)....! Obama is sayinig that basic medical services involving preventative contraceptive care should be as free as other basic care services are, such as dental visits, meds, checkups. Yes, we pay a bit for them, so they aren’t technically free but they are certainly affordable with insurance.

Obama is saying that no one has the right to discriminate between the services and certainly has no right to deny said services to the people who need or want them.

@bkcunningham I wouldn’t think elective surgery would come under that umbrella, do you? Where do you see that he’s addressing anything other than basic care? I take it that he’s referring to relatively inexpensive things such as birth control pills and depo shots, things like that, not abortions etc.

If the people are the government then the government is doing exactly what I want it to do!

Qingu's avatar

@bkcunningham, I’ve answered your “authority” question in a previous thread. His authority comes from the Affordable Care Act, which is a law enacted by Congress.

If you think Obama following this law is somehow unconstitutional, please come out and say it, and explain why. If you feel the law itself is unconstitutional, explain why. Frankly, I think your roundabout way of making these kinds of arguments gets pretty tiresome.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It is wrong to deny certain basic care to a group of people just because they are female and have female-specific needs.

bkcunningham's avatar

@Qingu, the matter of whether or not the ACA is Constitutional is before the US Supreme Court. I honestly hope they rule it as unConstitutional. The matter with Obama’s contraception madate is another matter. He veered away from what was written in the ACA. Under what authority did he do that?

@Dutchess_III, it is wrong to deny certain basic care to a anyone, IMHO.

Dutchess_III's avatar

You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, @bkcunningham.
Obama wants to see to it that all women are assured of basic women’s care needs through their insurance that they pay premiums on, and you call it “unconstitutional.”
Then you turn around and say “It’s wrong to deny basic care to anyone.”

So which one do you believe?

bkcunningham's avatar

I’m trying to run it through my mind people I’ve known who have been denied basic care, @Dutchess_III. So far, I’m coming up with people who have been held against their will and people who are being abused by their caregivers. Do you honestly think so little of me you would think I would deny anyone of basic care? I would hope not. I don’t even know you except on Fluther, and I’d bet you wouldn’t deny anyone of basic care.

Qingu's avatar

@bkcunningham, my understanding, which I have admittingly not checked recently, is that ACA establishes (relatively) broad regulatory powers in terms of what kinds of coverage insurance companies and employers have to offer patients. There is plenty of precedence for such regulation—as I’m sure you know the federal government can regulate interstate commerce (such as the health care industry) and has done so repeatedly for many years.

Bear in mind that almost every other civilized country has a public health care system, where the government at minimum forces the medical industry to offer certain kinds of care, if not nationalizing that industry. So you’ll have to pardon me if I think you’re feigning outrage over this. I’d also like you to acknowledge that the coverage in question is not free, and that if you don’t wish to spend money on birth control for religious reasons nobody is making you.

bkcunningham's avatar

I agree with you and @Aethelflaed, @Qingu. Of course medical insurance isn’t free. If an employee has medical insurance through an employer, the employer pays for the benefit, and many times the employee pays a share of the administration of the insurance benefits. Whether this payment by the employee is direct or indirect, the employees pays in other ways like less pay or other perks, in some cases.

On top of this cost, the employee pays a premium and/or a co-pay and other out-of-pocket expenses. The mandate says the contraception will be free. If you don’t want the free birth control, you aren’t going to be forced to go to the pharmacy and pick it up.

But the employer is still being forced to pay for their share of the coverage to give the employees the option and the employees, whether they opt into the free contraceptions or not, are sharing in the total cost of just having the insurance before anyone purchases any services or goods.. There is also employee owned companies you have to consider.

The matter of the government regulating health insurance like interstate commerce is yet to be determined, unless I’ve missed something that has happened recently. I don’t like the very idea of the POTUS being able to arbitrarily say what a company must do. I don’t think the ACA give him this power. I realize some people like @Dutchess_III doesn’t have a problem with that. But just remember, Obama won’t be POTUS forever. What if it were Rick Santorum making decisions about what private companies must do?

Qingu's avatar

I think it’s a misnomer to call something “free” when (1) you have to pay a copay, and (2) your employer takes the insurance cost out of your check. But okay, you’re right to say that you (or your employer) has to pay for it even if you elect not to use it. Likewise, I have to pay for insurance for cancer treatments even if I never get cancer. Even if I live a lifestyle (like not smoking, eating health) that drastically reduces cancer risks, my employer still has to offer insurance with the option of cancer treatment. So… what’s the big deal with contraception?

And I’m confused as to why you believe Obama invented this provision out of thin air. It was part of the law.

http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/

Obama seems to have invented the exceptions to this rule for religious institutions out of thin air, however. Although the footnote on that page makes it seem like it was part of the law? I don’t feel like researching this right now.

bkcunningham's avatar

I personally don’t care if it is birth control pills or cancer treatment, it is the process this POTUS uses in demanding a private company provide a service and setting the price, @Qingu. It isn’t an ant-birthcontrol issue with me. It isn’t a birth control issue at all in my eyes.

Your insurance has caps on what it will pay and the type of procedures it will cover. That is something you agreed to when you signed onto the policy. For me, personally, I think these areas are where someone smarter than I could really strike some reform, not forcing medical insurance to pay for birth control pills. Geez, you can walk out with a years’ worth in a brown paper bag for like $130 max and cheaper than that based on your income at the county health department along with a couple of complete physicals for the year and condoms if you want for that same cost.

The church issue is separate in my mind also. Like I said, I guess we’ll see how it plays out with our Supremes.

POTUS: “So last week, I directed the Department of Health and Human Services to speed up the process that had already been envisioned. We weren’t going to spend a year doing this; we’re going to spend a week or two doing this.

“Today, we’ve reached a decision on how to move forward. Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services -– no matter where they work. So that core principle remains. But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -– not the hospital, not the charity -– will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.”

Qingu's avatar

@bkcunningham, two points.

1. Some people can’t afford pills. Many women take pills for health reasons unrelated to contraception. Studies have shown that covering pills lead to substantial health benefits, fewer unplanned pregnancies, and fewer abortions. So it seems like it’s a no-brainer. But you’re not objecting to contraception coverage anyway, you’re objecting to regulating the insurance industry.

Okay. So, I think it’s clear that health insurance and care in the United States is a goddamn disaster. If you seriously believe that the industry should not be regulated to make coverage fairer, universal, and more affordable, well, perhaps that’s a topic best left to another question.

2. Again, under the existing law, which was enacted in Congress, those religiously affiliated organizations would have had to cover contraception. Obama used his executive powers to rejigger it so that coverage would move from religiously affiliated organizations to the insurers. (This is over and above the exemptions for churches and other direct religious groups, which I think were exempted in the original law, but maybe Obama did that too). You are seriously arguing this is executive overreach?

I mean, either way is fine with me. I would actually rather Catholic hospitals were forced to follow the same insurance rules that secular hospitals must follow, since that’s what the law says.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@bkcunningham It honestly sounds to me as if your suspicion is coming from a general mistrust of Obama as president. Can you honestly say that if this reform had been initiated by a Republican, you would have the same complaints? Is there any kind of healthcare reform that could be enacted without providing new rules for insurance companies? I don’t see how this could be accomplished without taking insurance companies out of the picture altogether.

Qingu's avatar

@dappled_leaves, I’d add employers too. most people get insurance through their employers. Employers pooling insurance is the only way insurance is affordable for many people.

So serious reforms would also entail either:
• Providing insurance directly to citizens rather than through employer fiefdoms (i.e. a public option)
• Creating large exchanges and insurance pools apart from employees (which the insurance industry hates). The law contains this option.
• Regulating employers’ insurance options to their employees (the law does this)

dappled_leaves's avatar

@Qingu Yes, I hear people talk about the involvement that employers have in health insurance, and I think of it in terms of Canada’s system, but perhaps that is wrong. The way I see it here, the employer chooses a coverage plan (sometimes with the participation of employees) from an insurance company. The employees can then either opt into or out of that plan as they wish. The employer contributes (to varying extents) to the employees’ premiums. I can’t remember the last time I worked at a company that didn’t offer an insurance plan, but I’ve often opted not to contribute, because I’m covered by Medicare regardless, and there’s sometimes very little extra benefit to joining a company plan.

But even so… the plan is offered by the insurance company, not the employer, and premiums are paid to the insurance company, just as claims are made to them. Is this not also the case in the US? Or are employers acting as insurance companies for their employees? If not, legislating the behaviour of employers in the process of merely arranging insurance for their employees would seem to me to be a very roundabout way of reforming healthcare. If so, then presumably any regulations for “insurers” applies to these companies, no?

Qingu's avatar

No, it’s basically the same. My point was that you have to legislate both. It would be hard to just regulate insurers without also regulating employers, since employers are most people’s gateway into the insurance system.

bkcunningham's avatar

@dappled_leaves, you are correct. It is my general mistrust of Obama.

Not all companies provide insurance for their employees in the US. Companies that do offer medical insurance, including employee owned firms, offer their own insurance and a separate company acts as the administrator of the health insurance plan. My husband worked for one of the largest employee owned general contractors in the world. We paid Cigna to administer the plan. We, as the company, paid for the medical expenses. That is usually the way it works. The company’s board of directors, who are also owners and employees, decides what they can afford to provide to the employees.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@bkcunningham Interesting. But if the company (employer) is paying for medical expenses, then that doesn’t agree with @Qingu‘s version (i.e., it is not like our system). Which is correct?

bkcunningham's avatar

@dappled_leaves, there isn’t one single type of medical insurance plan in the US. We have managed care plans, which is what my husband and I had with his employee owned company, that include health maintenance organizations, preferred provider organization plans and exculusive provider organization plans.

We also have fee-for-service or indemnity plans; military health care plans; Medicare; Medicaid; State Children’s Health Insurance; Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) insurance when you are laid off from a job and prexisiting condition insurance with is a high-risk health insurance pool operated by the states.

It is very complex and complicated and each of the above plans operates differently.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@bkcunningham OK. Let’s go back to ground 0. “Basic care” is mainly preventative care, right? Or minor care so something doesn’t turn major, right? So, wouldn’t you consider birth control to be basic preventative care?

This isn’t about The President trying to force anyone to give anything. This is about The President saying it needs to be the same across the board. All insurance companies offer birth control as a standard part of their package (as I said, helluva lot cheaper than helping care for packs of children.) The President is saying it isn’t right for some entity to just arbitrarily deny their employees that care on a whim.

bkcunningham's avatar

I see where you are coming from @Dutchess_III. I don’t agree that birth control is a basic need per se. Even if preventing pregnancies or treating endometreosis or whatever other medical or mental issues hormones are used for; there are other procedures that must be taken before the POTUS just changes part of a law and says, basically, ‘okay, insurance companies will have to eat the costs.”

I honestly think (EDIT: birth control) is being completely blown out of proportion. There are so many various ways for women to get birth control at a pretty cheap cost, I’m just curious what all the uproar is REALLY about. It is more than birth control. It is more than pushing the line on church and state. It is a power grap. If it sets a precedent and people just say it is okay because it is something they believe is the right thing to do, or it is a basic need or it is a basic care; don’t be surprised when another leader does something you don’t agree with.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, since you opened that door, @bkcunningham, perhaps it is bigger than just that. Perhaps it’s more about discriminating against a certain group of people (women). Perhaps the fight is against a male chauvinistic power trip. Perhaps it’s about someone trying to control the actions or decisions of that group of people against their will. Kinda like, not “allowing” them to vote and power grabs like that.

bkcunningham's avatar

How do you figure it it discriminating against women?

Dutchess_III's avatar

What??? That’s what the whole fight is about @bkcunningham! Contraception for women!

Qingu's avatar

@bkcunningham, I was not surprised when George Bush invaded Iraq for no reason and used ⅓ of my tax dollars to pay for it. I opposed it of course.

The difference here is that I had reasons to oppose the Iraq War. Many, many reasons. I’m failing to see any reasons to oppose covering birth control for all women. You haven’t really offered any. You’ve just vaguely hinted that it’s a power grab by the president (despite being enacted by Congress).

Aethelflaed's avatar

@bkcunningham It’s discriminating against women because only birth control is causing this outrage, even though the health care bill (passed by a majority of Congress, not just Obama…) removed copays for most preventative care, not just birth control. Why is there no outcry over insurances being forced to not charge on immunizations, cancer screenings, STD prevention counseling, cholesterol screenings, blood pressure screenings, hearing screenings for newborns – the list goes on and on. Possibly because cancer screenings can’t be turned into an issue about sluts?
And because of the timing. It’s happening during the War on Women. If this was such a problem before, the congressmen who have a problem with it now could have tried to get it out of the healthcare bill in the first place.

bkcunningham's avatar

I don’t see how telling someone to pay for their own birth control is discriminating, @Dutchess_III. Sorry, but I don’t. If it is, then it is the same for men wanting a vasectomy or a woman wanting her tubes tied, right?

bkcunningham's avatar

@Qingu, President Bush didn’t circumvent the Constitution though.

bkcunningham's avatar

The War on Women? LOL Are you serious? I am really out of touch with reality in my own little world, @Aethelflaed. Are we going to get drafted?

Dutchess_III's avatar

@bkcunningham….. Contraception IS covered for “free” (after premiums are paid) with all insurance companies.

Dutchess_III's avatar

And insurance pays for a good portion of elective surgeries, such as vasectomies and tubal ligation.

bkcunningham's avatar

@Dutchess_III, every county operated health department across America gives women pap/pelvic exams, annual physicals and a year’s worth of birth control pills for little to no money as it is now with or without health insurance regardless of your income.

Dutchess_III's avatar

So, since it’s available through the county (read “tax payer supported”) clinics it’s OK if The Church contracts with an insurance company for their employees that the employees pay for, and picks and chooses what that insurance will allow and will NOT allow for a certain group of people for no reason. So, if it says, “Blacks are not allowed to have blood pressure meds covered, or partially covered, under the terms of this policy,” that’s OK since they can probably get it through their county (=tax payer supported) clinics?

bkcunningham's avatar

@Dutchess_III, I haven’t heard anyone say that insurance shouldn’t be allowed to cover birth control. The issue is forcing insurance companies to provide it free and forcing them to provide ANYTHING.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Then you’ve missed the whole discussion.

Qingu's avatar

@bkcunningham, Obama didn’t circumvent the constitution either.

I don’t really know how to make this clearer. You are not objecting to an action of the president. You are objecting to legislation. If you think that Congress does not have the power to regulate interstate commerce (such as the health care industry), feel free to make that argument.

Dutchess_III's avatar

And, as I’m thinking about it, maybe The President is trying to take the onus of basic care off of county (=tax payer funded) clinics and back onto the insurance companies where it belongs. Leave the county clinic services for those who really need it—Those who can’t afford insurance.

SpatzieLover's avatar

I don’t see how telling someone to pay for their own birth control is discriminating

@bkcunningham You have to be joking.

Erectile dysfunction meds are covered because the pills are for a “medical condition”. Yet, BC isn’t covered even though a good percentage of women do take it as a medicine for specific female problems.

That is the definition of discrimination.

bkcunningham's avatar

@SpatzieLover, before what you said gets confusing for me, please clarify. Are you saying birth control pills aren’t covered by medical insurance?

Dutchess_III's avatar

They ARE covered by medical insurance. What is happening is that churches who subscribe to those insurance providers as benefits for their employees (or students, or whatever) want to have the right to put in a codicil that the insurance NOT pay for birth control for women, because birth control is against the church’s beliefs. That’s the problem. Doesn’t matter that 99% of the woman find some way to control pregnancy. It’s The Man at the Head of the Church that’s trying to prevent it from happening, or making it very difficult for women to get birth control.

Read today that Az or someplace is trying to make that a standard for ALL business, that they can refuse women the right to have BC covered by insurance, even it it’s something the insurance providers provide as a standard. This is getting totally out of hand. WTF is wrong with these people.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther