Sandra Fluke weighs to this lastest leg of the controversy:
What else has happened? How could the President compromise any more? Its hard to imagine.
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday proposed yet another compromise to address strenuous objections from religious organizations about a policy requiring health insurance plans to provide free contraceptives, but the change did not end the political furor or legal fight over the issue.
The proposal could expand the number of groups that do not need to pay directly for birth control coverage, encompassing not only churches and other religious organizations, but also some religiously affiliated hospitals, universities and social service agencies. Health insurance companies would pay for the coverage.
The latest proposed change is the third in the last 15 months, all announced on Fridays, as President Obama has struggled to balance women’s rights, health care and religious liberty. Legal experts said the fight could end up in the Supreme Court.
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said the proposal would guarantee free coverage of birth control “while respecting religious concerns.”
But Kyle Duncan, the general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Washington, which is representing employers in eight lawsuits, said the litigation would continue. “Today’s proposed rule does nothing to protect the religious freedom of millions of Americans,” Mr. Duncan said.
One might think that this proposal would silence the whiners. Think again. How many more times is President Obama going to try to compromise with people who simply define compromise as giving them their own way? The only way to silence these people is to totally do away with any birth control being provided as insurance coverage. That just isn’t going to happen.
More from the New York Times explaining how far the president is willing to go:
Under the new proposal, churches and nonprofit religious organizations that object to providing birth control coverage on religious grounds would not have to pay for it.
Female employees could get free contraceptive coverage through a separate plan that would be provided by a health insurer. Institutions objecting to the coverage would not pay for the contraceptives.
Insurance companies would bear the cost of providing the separate coverage, with the possibility of recouping the costs through lower health care expenses resulting in part from fewer births.
It really is time for the lunatic fringe to SDASTFU. Religions must understand that they cannot impose their will on others. This even newer plan simply does not compromise anyone.
Contraception is not open to debate. This is the year 2013. Women will never have equality until they control their own reproduction. Critics might tell women to pay for it themselves. That is fine for middle class women. However, those living on the edge between poverty and being comfortably middle class often find the cost of contraception very much of a burden. With the average rx of birth control pills costing upwards of $50 for a month’s dosage, families can find that $50 going for other things, especially in tight times. How many of us can remember a critical $50 in our lives? Those hard times often come when you are at the height of your reproductive life.
Do we want our employer deciding what medicine we can take or what coverage we can get? What if you work for a Jehova’s Witness. Should that employer be legally deny you blood transfusion coverage? What about a strict Christian Scientist who doesn’t believe in innoculations? Should those be denied? Americans would think those suggestions absurd.
At what point do the religious fanatics need to be told to shove it? Actually, it isn’t all religious fanatics doing the talking. Religious groups like churches were given an exemption in the first place. This is all political and basically ‘anti-Obama’ bitching, moaning and groaning. The religious folks shouldn’t take full blame on this.
Meanwhile, no one is denying anyone their religious rights. No one is forcing anyone to take contraception or pay for contraception. You can be as backward as you want to be. You don’t even have to pay for someone else living in the 21st century. With separate coverage and insurance companies paying, the anti-contraception folks have just run out of road. Now they will just look stupid.
E.J. Dionne has the final word on this compromise in his op-ed.
Obama did not compromise at all. The Courts ordered the Administration to revise the contraception mandate and reinstated legal challenges from religious affiliated businesses. Only in Orwellian Newspeak can HHS, after being forced by the courts to revise the rules, claim to be compromising with opponents.
Did she just compare denying care to leukemia patients with denying birth control?
Ok, then.
@Cargo
No. Listen again.
@kelly_3406
It was a compromise. There have been no firm court decisions ruling on anything.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/26/birth-control-lawsuits_n_2559773.html
Are you one of those anti contraception freakazoids?
Why would you possibly care if an insurance policy paid for someone else’s contraception?
It makes absolutely no sense to me. I don’t think these people have a leg to stand on.
There are a whole lot of companies out there now lining up for some action that aren’t even religious organizations…saying it offends their religion.
Tough crap. Let them be offended.
@Cargosquid
Here you go. My ears sometimes “mis-hear’ things too.
“If you take a step back and think about that, you work at a restaurant or you work at a store, and your boss is able to deny you leukemia coverage or contraception coverage or blood transfusions or any number of medical concerns that someone might have a religious objection to,” Fluke said. “So the folks who are still objecting [to the mandate] have some very extreme ideas about religious freedom and employee health care in this country.”
Oh…ok.
Guess what? Its a contract. Many types of insurance cover different things.
Some DON”T cover leukemia coverage. Some don’t offer contraception. Some are just major medical. The boss is not denying medical treatment. The company is just not paying for THAT insurance.
I expect if this goes against the employers, they will just drop coverage altogether in many cases.
Now, if they would decouple health insurance from employment and open the market to across state lines, SOMEONE would offer her the insurance that she wants.
The boss decides what policy to get in the first place and what coverages will be on the policy. You are leaving the bill payer out of the equation, thus your argument has huge gaping holes in it.
That will all be changing soon.
Just out of curiosity, do you think that is right? Should your boss get to decide what is on your health coverage? Let’s go back to that Jehovah’s witness question. How about refusal to pay for blood transfusions?
You are referring to catastrophic policies. Most of those are private. its what unemployed people get or those who are getting ready to croak.
@Cargo
With the average rx of birth control pills costing upwards of $50 for a month’s dosage, families can find that $50 going for other things, especially in tight times.
What? People can’t shop at Walmart or Target for drugs?
There’s always the “Don’t have sex.” Option. Or use other forms of BC. Many use it because they don’t think that they can afford kids…and either can’t afford or can’t use the pill.
Are you telling me that all birth control pills are on the discount rack at Walmart and Target? I don’t think so.
Additionally, lots of people don’t live around those stores. Some live hours away and must rely on local pharmacies.
Don’t have sex. You are surely kidding me. That statement is disgusting. Just disgusting. Who are you to tell any woman to or not to have sex!
It really isn’t up to us to decide what form of contraception a woman or a man uses, now is it?
That colonial, paternalistic attitude you are showing is part of the problem and most of the reason that women are so enraged and will make sure that you will NOT win. Don’t have sex… 🙄
@Moon-howler
Birth control during the kerfuffle with Sandra Fluke was going for $7-9 at Walmart and Target drug stores. Some Targets, while none here, sell drugs, apparently. Generics!
@Cargo
Sez who? You are aware that the pill is sold as an rx and not usually as a generic? Doctors prescribe different brands and doseages to diferent people, based on their medical needs. I think an rx is now more like $60-$70. There are also people who have medical conditions that require hormonal therapy who are not sexually active.
For that matter, for some peoplek even $10 a month might be stretching things if they have kids, child care and someone always needs a new pair of shoes.
@Moon-howler
I’m not telling anyone not to have sex. I’m stating that if people don’t want the dangers of pregnancy, don’t have sex. Its not a command. Its a statement of fact.
OR…if they can’t take the pill….then what? Oh, I know…the guy goes and gets contraception. Hey! That’s an idea.
People don’t have sex ALL THE TIME. Its not a paternalistic attitude. Is it only the woman that’s NOT having sex? NO. I’m telling the men not to have sex either.
@Cargo, that is the implication and to say otherwise is to use weasel words. Just the ‘suggestion’ does the same thing. Its paternalistic and it also goes against human nature. You know that as well as I do. re: human nature.
Yes, it is a paternalistic attitude. You don’t get to say. Sorry. That’s just not something people say about themselves. It is a perception OTHERS get.
Telling men not to have sex…well now there’s an interesting concept. You and whose army? I agree that men should share responsibility for contraception. However, the reality is, it’s ultimately the woman’s responsibility because she is who gets pregnant. We can play with all sorts of words but that is the bottom line.
The birth control pills was only an example because it is one of the more common forms of contraception. Depro and other longer lasting implants are quite expensive. If someone can’t afford $50 bucks a month its pretty obvious that $300-400 is not going to be any more attainable, even if it lasts longer. Sterilization is extremely expensive, although less expensive for men than women.
Contraception is expensive and should be covered under health care. It is extremely cost effective when once compares it to giving birth.
For those who oppose abortion, it is really the only answer. To opposde contraception and abortion is to just live in lala land.
@Moon-howler
The problem is that the constitution actually does provide for First amendment rights, so the president cannot arbitrarily trample on them. There is no right for contraception to be paid for by someone else.
This whole problem could be fixed by getting companies/corporations out of the business of negotiating/providing health insurance policies. They could move to a different model where they simply provide cash toward the purchase of medical insurance. The individual could then choose a policy that suits his/her needs.
The president hasn’t trampled on anyone’s rights. This whole birth control thing is so bogus.
There is no right to drive on an interstate yet you do.
Let’s look at the consumer, 10 years ago. Let’s say Mr. Jones has a health plan through his employer. He believes birth control is the tool of Satan and doesn’t use it. He must pay $100 a pay period for his health care insurance. That insurance carries a benefit for rx contraception as well as sterilation for both the Mr. and the Mrs.
Does Mr. Jones see this, become outraged, and refuse his insurance? Not if he isnt totally stupid. He takes his insurance, pays his portion, and simply doesn’t use the birth control part. No one is holding a gun to his head. Is he an immoral heathen? I hardly think so.
You are exactly right. Mr Jones always had the right to refuse his insurance or seek employment elsewhere. He also had the right to establish health savings account together with a catastrophic health insurance plan, which covered none of those things. Health savings account are being curtailed to make all the sheeple fall in line with the will of the state.
@kelly_3406
Private retirement accounts haven’t worked out so well. Why do you think health insurance would be any different? Joe Blow will probably buy the cheapest plan and not be covered for some catastrophe, accident, or disease. Then you and I will bail him out when he ends up at the hospital or when he can’t support his unplanned kiddos.
The government has used similar arguments to regulate aspects of our lives that were considerd unthinkable 20 years ago. Because Joe Blow cannot handle his finances, I have to lose the right to use HSAs? The time has come to wean Joe Blow from the nanny state. One way to do it would be to link the cost of catastrophic health insurance plans to the available cash in a family’s HSA. If the individual did not fund his HSA, then the cost of catastrophic insurance would rise so as to be unaffordable compared to conventional insurance.
And in the circles that I run in, private retirement accounts have worked very well. Many of my very senior colleagues are retiring with financial independence, having built substantial wealth over their careers that will ensure a very comfortable retirement.
@Kelly.
Isn’t it just grand that everyone you run with is comfortably upper middle class.
You are aware that there are people out there who didn’t have real high paying jobs and their 401k just wasn’t enough to make for a large enough retirement to be described at comfortable.
There are other people who get pensions, 401Ks, and who are lucky and can sock away money to be comfortable.
In order to build substantial wealth over one’s career one must have a very high paying job.
I am not really sure the point of your comment places.
The jobs are not all that high paying. The point is that these people developed a plan and stuck to it. They contributed money from every paycheck over the period of their 30-40 year careers They were able to take care of themselves and their families without the assistance of the nanny state.
I am thinking on this, kelly, and I am still not sure what “nanny state” you are talking about.
Are your friends not taking their social security checks or what? I am still over here trying to figure out your point.
Ok, I went back and read and I am not sure what you are talking about when you say ‘private retirement account.’ Are you speaking of an IRA? Private savings account?
On the medical, I really don’t understand. Are you speaking of the medical savings that you could put away up to $3000 tax free money to pay for things not covered on insurance? That was also use it or lose it money if you went through your employer.
Catastrophic health coverage? Why would anyone want that? Huge deductible and coverage was only major medical type stuff? Not a very desirable type of policy. I can’t imagine anyone would want one of those rather than a regular policy.
Its very difficult for most people to save for retirement of an average paying job and to end up very comfortable in old age. The 401k is only about 30 years old. About 60% of all workers have a 401K and for those retiring, the average amount in the 401k is $140,000.
Granted, those are average figures but that amount isn’t going to get you very far.
There are tax restrictions on how much can be saved in a retirement account. People have to supplement outside of the normal vehicles for retirement. Unless they have a pretty decent paying job, this isn’t going to happen.
The crash really slammed people headed into retirement and many people had to postpone their plans.
I guess I still don’t understand your point and where the “nanny state” is kicking in on the average Joe except for your friends. I don’t think I am nanny stating. Maybe I am and don’t know it.
Almost afraid to wade into this discussion…anyway….According to Planned Parenthood the average cost of oral contraceptives ranges from $15 – $50 per month with the most commonly prescribed pills running in the $15 – $30 per month range. So $50 per month would be on the high side.
Where I disagree with Ms Fluke’s argument is in how she puts birth control in the same class as drugs to treat leukemia or blood transfusions. If you have leukemia or you need a blood transfusion you don’t have much of a choice – it’s get the treatment or die.
Unlike cancer treatment, birth control is not a medical necessity. You won’t die if you don’t take birth control pills. Taking birth control to prevent pregnancy is a choice, and you have lots of different choices, each of which has a different cost associated with it. You can be sterilized, take oral contraceptive, use condoms, use nothing, or not have intercourse. Which option you choose is entirely up to you, and your life does not depend on the choice you make.
In my opinion, insurance companies should be required to cover medications and treatments that are medically necessary, like surgery, casts or braces for broken bones, insulin, chemotherapy, or vaccines. Insurance companies should be required to cover medical exams and screenings, like prenatal visits, mammograms, HPV tests, prostate screening, well baby exams, etc. To me these items are medically necessary and ought to be covered.
Birth control solely for the purpose of preventing pregnancy isn’t a medical necessity. As such, in my opinion, whether an employer provides coverage for birth control should be at the discretion of the employer. Just like with infertility, if an employer wants to purchase a rider and provide coverage for birth control for their employees, then they should be able to do so. And if they don’t, then that should also be allowed to do so.
I am glad you aren’t making the decisions then, Kim.
Actually, birth control can be a medical necessity. Go to a a cemetery that dates back to the 1800s and check out how many young women are buried. They didn’t die of old age.
I want my health coverage to be a little more than the things you listed.
Not everyone lives in Northern Virginia. There are plenty of women in remote and rural places where there is no access to Planned Parenthood. In fact, if conservative law makers have their way, there would be no Planned Parenthood. $15-$50 dollars is a lot of money to some people, especially those people who live a marginal existence between being poor and middle class.
I am always amazed at how little bloggers know about those who aren’t solidly middle class. Most Northern Virginians would be considered rich if they went out to some of the rural areas in America with their Northern Virginia pay checks and standard of living.
I know people who have to drive over an hour to get to a walmart, probably 4-5 hours to get to a Planned Parenthood.
Historically, women have been not had equal rights because they didn’t have earning power. Some events came along in the United States that served as a spring board for women to start claiming that equality. The invention of antibiotics 9cut down on some child birth deaths), WWII (women worked en mass outside the home), and birth control pills. The more one is in control of their own reproduction, the greater their earning capacity.
I think you younger women really don’t understand how things used to be. You seem awfully willing to give up some rights that have been fought for for a really long time. Do you really want your employer to decide whether you take the pill or have a tubal ligation?
Actually, reproduction is very much a part of health care. Why should it be treated differently than any other health benefit?
Providing access to the Doctor’s visit, and making the birth control available under the plan will encourage those less fortunate to use birth control. Have none of you ever known a teenager that ends up pregnant – they have all the excuses – it was not time, he said he would cover, it was only once, etc. None of those teens say – I had access to birth control pills and chose not to use them. Giving out birth control can actually reduce abortions – isn’t that a good thing – nothing in the law says one must use birth control. And reducing unwanted pregnancy is a good thing – there are many children born into broken homes.
Why is Viagra covered in many insurance plans? Sex is not a medical necessity, and man will not die if he is not relieved.
I am pretty sure that women who suffer from sever endometriosis would argue quite vehmently with you KimS. I am pretty sure women who have severe diabetes would argue with you KimS. I also imagine that women who simply do not want to get pregant but still want the same rights as men deservee their choice in birth control.
I hate who oogey gooey this country remains over sex!
I find it interesting that viagra is covered so men can obtain an erection and yet, here we are, arguing about birth control for women.
There MUST be a joke somewhere in that screwed up paradigm!
Elena – here’s what I said, “Birth control solely for the purpose of preventing pregnancy isn’t a medical necessity.” I’ll highlight the important part, since you seem to have missed it “solely for the purpose of preventing pregnancy”. Medications for controlling or treating medical conditions, like PCOS, Endometriosis, or Menorrhagia, which also happen to prevent pregnancy would be covered as treating the condition make them medically necessary.
Insurance companies should be required to cover treatments that are medically necessary, provided the treatments are medically necessary. Birth control solely for the purposes of preventing pregnancy is not medically necessary. It is a choice you are making that your life circumstances at the present time are not advantageous to having and raising a child.
I think we’d all agree that breast augmentation shouldn’t be subsidized as it’s not medically necessary. How about breast augmentation following mastectomy? I’d argue that breast augmentation following mastectomy is medically necessary and ought to be subsidized.
That medical necessity is an important distinction, to me, because if you subsidize some treatments that aren’t medically necessary then who gets to decide which non-medically necessary treatments get subsidized?
Case in point is Viagra. Viagra is subsidized because someone in the HHS classified erectile dysfunction as a medical condition and someone in the FDA listed Viagra as a medication to treat that medical condition. Viagra, according to the folks at HHS and FDA, is medically necessary. If left up to them, vaginal rejuvenation is the next medical condition they’ll be addressing.
I totally disagree that preventing pregnancy isn’t ‘medically necessary.’ In our society we have evolved to treating the entire person. Furthermore, you are the only person who has decided that nothing should be covered that isn’t medically necessary.
Pregnancy is a unique medical condition and is limited to only females. That doesn’t make it medically unnecessary.
Is this a new teajadist point of view?
While you might be willing to contribute to your own oppression, you do not have permission to contribute to mine. Kim, you seemed to have cherry picked your own medical necessities. There are many people who would trade those provided well baby check ups for monthly contraception. People should not be required to go forth and multiply.