If they are getting an extra benefit (forcibly by federal mandate) and they are not paying any more for it, then it is free indeed. In fact, everyone participating in that health plan will be helping to bear the cost whether or not they use birth control. Further in fact, you can guarantee that rates will GO UP because now we have a benefit paid that we did not before. A "typical" major medical premium on a group policy for a female (estimating my wife's) is around $300 a month as I recall (could be higher-- I'll edit this figure if I need to when I can ascertain the exact number). Start paying out $90/month in claims and that premium is just going UP, UP, UP in the near future. Every participant in that plan will see their premiums go up precipitously because of usage that did not exist before. Beyond that is, of course, the issue of the religious freedom of the institution to not have to endorse or pay for something that compromises their beliefs.
I wish religions had something against---gluttony? I don't know, I can't think of one that does. why would we cover things like heart attacks, diabetes, and other diseases contracted primarily from over-consumption. WHY. WE DEMAND LIBERTY from higher premiums according to bad decisions by other people. their food promiscuous lifestyles are immoral and weird. selective pickings from religion. Why in the hell, after all these years, so much focus on sex? Sex is intensely healthy. You burn calories doing it. It is hella fun. You don't indirectly starve Third World citizens by having TOO much sex.
Northside, since you've been known to take words out of context (ironically, as do many bible believers who pick and choose what to believe), I'll simply give a scripture and you're welcome to interpret as you please.
You make a good case for abolishing coverage mandates. Why in the hell is it any of your business what they focus on? I get so sick of people thinking they can tell others how to live. If they don't want to cover contraception, that's their business. It's supposed to be a free country.
I called a health insurance broker friend of mine. While we don't have the facts at hand, she talked about what the probabilities are. More than likely Georgetown has a self-funded insurance plan, meaning that they write their own plan (excluding birth control as a covered expense) and only have a traditional insurance plan to back up with a VERY high deductible to stop losses from excessive claims. This means that they collect premiums from their subscribers and pay out claims per the dictates of their own health insurance plan design with a catastrophic backup plan. She adds that this is the "preferred" way for large companies to offer health coverage these days. Also I asked her about rates. She said that since plan designs could vary widely, it would be hard to provide a typical "female" rate but she used $380 as an actual example from one of her cases. Rates are composites of the make-up of the group: age and sex being the factors, i.e. a group with more females will have a higher rate than a group with more males and a younger group will have a lower rate than an older group. She also added that on traditional insurance plans, birth control is a mandatory coverage.... at least in North Carolina. Health Insurance is "governed" at the state level.
This is the most fiercely ironic statement I have seen in quite a while. The people who refuse to cover contraception are EXACTLY the sort of people who thrive on telling others how to live. Jesus Christ Inc.---worth billions and holding an influential stake on all. somehow, you painting them as the archetype of liberty-motivated causes is just profoundly, profoundly ironic. I also think it goes back to the difference from positive liberty and negative liberty. If you truly supported positive liberty, you'd allow human beings to get the full range of services they're paying into.
I'll give you a bible passage, and you can interpret it however you want. “Why do you see the speck of chaff that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye.” Maybe a Galbraith passage too? The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith And hell, a brain-twister! INTERPRET GREENSPAN! "It is not that humans have become any more greedy than in generations past. It is that the avenues to express greed had grown so enormously." but the real twister! Risk takers have been encouraged by a perceived increase in economic stability to reach out to more distant time horizons. But long periods of relative stability often engender unrealistic expectations of it permanence and, at times, may lead to financial excess and economic stress. —Alan Greenspan, testimony on his 35th appearance before the Financial Services Committee of the US House of Representatives on July 20, 2005
Liberty does not mean I get whatever I want (from others, no less). It means I am free to pursue the things I want. It means if someone chooses to offer me a health plan with birth control coverage, I can choose to purchase it. Freedom is not just another word for nothing left to lose.
Good, then accept that you live within a nation, a system, that requires accommodation for varying beliefs, cooperation with the majority as expressed as the law of the land, and shared responsibility. Healthcare is a mandate because everyone needs it, everyone will use it, so everyone should share responsibility to pay for it. If it were left fully to free market forces the only people offered insurance would be males from 25 -40 because they are the most profitable. And again (and again) offering contraceptives lowers insurance costs. You could provide contraceptives for 100 women for less than the cost of 1 pregnancy.
A number of Catholic universities offer birth control under their health insurance, including some offer (gasp!) abortion coverage. Reckon those Catholic universities are not religious enough. But an interesting question would be, do these organizations offer coverage for vasectomies? If yes, would that suggest a double standard in covering men who want to get it on without risk of conception, but not covering women who want to get it on without risk of conception? Of course, this ignores the fact that birth control pills also offer other medical benefits...
If this image were accurate, Obama would be saying he wants people who pay for insurance products that, as a rule, cover puppy purchase to actually have such coverage so that people who WANT puppies can buy them through their purchased insurance plan. In no way does the ACA force women to use birth control. But you knew that and STILL posted the inaccurate image. sigh
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/03/12/fluke-the-welfare-queen Now a rightwinger calls Ms. Fluke a "Welfare Queen." Good lord. To me, this is why the Limbaugh thing gets more attention than remarks made by Maher, Schultz, etc. People are just reacting to the specific words sued ("slut," "prostitute," etc.). In fact, the words used by Bill Maher ("****" and "twat") are quite a bit uglier than Limbaugh's words in most people's view. Limbaugh and his cohorts believe in and say a whole lot more about women than simple name calling. They are frequently against policies that benefit women and argue that that women are "free loaders" with or without employing these specific words. Remember, Rush took back the two words he used, but didn't take back his argument that she must have been promiscuous to spend $1000 a year on contraception pills.
Excellent post, and I admire the effort, but you're wasting your time attempting to use logic with those who ardently oppose Obama, Democrats, Progressive ideas, women's rights, and logic, or did I already mention that. Keep up the good fight, though, because it may reach the reachables, many of whom read this forum, but don't post in it.
Not sure what you meant by this cryptic reply. I called another health insurance broker of mine and, as I suspected, the documentation is always made up to look like a "fully-insured" play because it really is seamless from the consumer end. If you look at the cost factors, it's $1900/year or about $160 per month for the student but to add dependent coverage (spouse OR children) the cost goes up to $5500/year or about $460/month ($300 more) and to add full family coverage the cost goes up to $720/month ($560 more). It would appear that the university is picking up about half the cost of the enrolled student and passing through 100% of the cost of dependent coverage to the "subscriber." That is a normal pattern for distributing cost.
By the way, national advertising on Limbaugh's show has been suspended and 140 advertisers have now bailed. http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012...ndicator-suspends-national-ads-for-two-weeks/ Add to that Murdoch's chosen one got arrested... http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/13/world/europe/uk-phone-hacking-arrests/index.html And we have a good day.
Issue solved. <iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z4qlWcA1cSc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
