The Supreme Court on Tuesday prepared to hear a second challenge to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, this time to decide whether employers must provide their workers with insurance coverage for contraceptives even if the owners say it would violate their religious principles.
What is likely to be the signature ruling of the court’s term presents the justices with complicated questions about religious freedom and equality for female workers. It could have long-term implications for what other legal requirements companies could decline because of religious convictions. And it asks a question the court has never confronted: whether the Constitution or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that protects an individual’s exercise of religion extends to secular, for-profit corporations and their owners.
The 1993 religious-freedom law prohibits the federal government from imposing a “substantial burden” on a person’s exercise of religion unless there is a “compelling governmental interest” and the measure is the least-restrictive means of achieving the interest.
The challengers in the cases before the court Tuesday are family-owned businesses that told the court in briefs that the law requires them “to do precisely what their religion forbids them or face draconian consequences — including millions in fines, private lawsuits and government enforcement actions.”
The Obama administration responded in its briefs that the challengers could not point to “a single case in this nation’s history” that exempted a corporation from a neutral law that regulated commercial activites.
It contends that the RFRA was intended to protect individuals, not corporations, but that even if corporations are covered, there is no substantial burden on the company’s owners. It is the companies, not the owners, who provide the insurance, the government contends, and it is the employees, not the owners, who decide what services they will use.
The court is considering two cases that raise the same issue.
One was brought by the owners of Hobby Lobby, an arts-and-crafts chain that founder David Green said is run on biblical principles. Hobby Lobby has grown from a single store opened in Oklahoma City in 1972 to more than 500 stores nationally and a workforce of 13,000 people of all faiths. In its brief, the company said it shows its religious foundation by actions such as closing on Sundays and refusing to sell shot glasses.
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver found Hobby Lobby’s argument that it was covered by the RFRA convincing.
Shot glasses and closing on Sunday are employer choices. Using contraception is a personal employee choice. It just isn’t something your boss should get to decide. Now, if your boss thinks contraception violates his or her rights, then they shouldn’t be using it. That has nothing to do with you. Could they deny you a blood transfusion in your coverage? What if they were opposed to sex? Could they deny you AIDs testing? How about vegan bosses? Could you be denied coverage for any disease thought to be related to eating animals or red meat?
The world is full of unintended consequences. This statement is particularly true when dealing with the courts. I have zero sympathy for those who oppose others using contraception. If you deal with the public and have 13,000 employees, suck it up Buttercup. Pay for full coverage. Don’t violate the rights of women and the rights of employees.
Once again, I cannot believe that in the year 2014, we are still discussing who gets to use contraception. That is simply absurd to have court cases over what should be a personal decision. Also, corporations do not have religious beliefs.
As usual with anything regarding birth control, you like to ignore the actual argument in favor of one you like better. Regardless of anyone’s views on contraception, women’s rights or other distractions, the issue at stake is a very narrow one and it is very likely the court will strike down the contraception mandate. Here’s the actual issue before the court:
Is the requirement for employers to provide contraceptive coverage in health insurance the least restrictive possible means of serving a compelling governmental interest?
To win that point you have to make the case first that providing contraception is a compelling governmental interest. Then you have to make the case that the least restrictive way (restrictive here means putting the least restrictions on the free expression of religion) of providing contraception to people is requiring employers to cover it on health insurance. That second part is going to be really hard to do.
If you can come up with any counterexample (say, a tax credit for contraception or grants to NGOs to distribute contraception) then the case is over. The contraception mandate is illegal under the RFRA and the contraception mandate is repealed.
The RFRA has already been to the Supreme Court in 2006 and was upheld as constitutional, so it’s “settled law”.
I hope and expect the contraception mandate will be struck down. Then the government can figure out how to create a legal means to provide contraception to people who can’t afford it. If you don’t like that outcome, talk to Bill Clinton and the Democratic congress that passed the RFRA.
i thought the issue was the mandated ‘contraception’ that is used after the fact.
I don’t think that is medically proven, is it? I haven’t heard their reasons.
If that were the case, why wouldn’t they spell out what they wanted to cover and what they didn’t want to cover? It seems like they are nixing it all.
Imagine that! Someone arguing the side they like better? Of course. Why would I argue for a side I didn’t like. The problem is, the boss is deciding what coverage you will have.
Hobby Lobby and the other firm are trying to BS their way by saying providing contraception coverage is against their religious beliefs. I am not so sure that “providing” coverage for something is really against their religious beliefs. If that is the case, then we can pull anything out of the sky and claim it is against our religious beliefs.
There are all sorts of things people “don’t approve of.” I don’t think disapproval is a reason not to provide as a health coverage, especially when the laws of the state or nation mandate such a coverage.
Furby, you are absolutely correct in stating that I will always fall on the side of the individual when it comes to the issue of birth control. I am assuming I am your elder. I know what it was like to not have access to birth control and I have heard my mother on the subject. I consider it a deeply personal choice and not one that anyone else can make for you. I would also consider that right for any female of reproductive maturity, even though we might not think that young person has any business having sex.
If they are too young to have sex, they are absolutely too young to be parents.
@Moon-howler
Nothing is preventing the employees of Hobby Lobby from acquiring or using contraception.
This is not about access to birth control. This is not LSD or heroin or some other illegal drug. It is about (first) who shoud pay for it and, second, whether the government can supercede my religious ojections to birth control and force me to pay for it for you. The governent can pay for it, most people can go to any clinic or other do gooder organization to get it for free – so access is not the issue, but those who want to trample religous rights in an effort to meet an unfunded social goal that birth control should be free need to be careful before going down this slippery slope. Once a private small business is not the owner (as it is today) there will be all kinds of business liability and personal tax separation issues that will need to be resolved. Liberals are not going to like that.
From what I’ve read it’s the type of contraception. At one time drug treatment wasn’t covered. Now we all pay for that. Life extending surgeries…. I do ask, where does it stop?
@Cargosquid
You are overlooking the obvious. Why should they not have it covered by their health care? I sure did when I worked for the county.
It should be covered. Now I don’t care if there is a co-pay even on contraception, like there is on other drugs. It should be equal across the board.
Contraception is a part of health care for most people.
I wonder if they are willing to put ED rx on as coverage. Bet the answer to that one is yes.
@blue
Access to free contraception is an issue. don’t be a rube, Blue. I don’t know if you are male or female but do you want to go to the local health department and stand in line for your free rx of contraception? If you are a professional, I bet you would like to just go to your local drug store and have your pharmacist fill your rx and have it paid for like the rest of your rx’s.
I don’t think just liberals believe that your boss shouldn’t decide if you get contraception coverage.
@Lyssa
Why do we have drug coverage in the first place? I thought they were balking at all contraception.
At any rate, they don’t want to provide for pills, IUD, or permanent sterilization from what I can gather. I believe that religious issues involve the person, not what happens in business.
A local doctor used to have a religious issue with the IUD. He simply referred the patient to one of his partners. Problem solved.
@Moon-howler
Rube ?? So you agree, its not about access. Would free at the drug store make you feel batter – paid for by the government? If its not about access it is about who pays for it and if not the government then employeers as an unfunded mandate. Sounds to me as though religious freedom is being made subservient to a social agenda. I agree that the boss has no business deciding whether or not you access birth control, but does have a fundemental business and a religous right to determine if he /she is going to pay for it.
Why? What if you worked for Jehovah’s Witnesses and they refused to pay for blood transfusions. Every paid for one of those out of pocket?
Not everyone has access to clinics. Why should contraception be treated any differently from any other rx?
Aside from well care I don’t see insurance covering electives – without a surcharge.
Is contraception an elective? Is lipiture an elective? What is elective and what isn’t? I don’t see contraception as an elective. I see it as part of well care. Are iron pills an elective?
Contraception improves the quality of life, Lipitor saves life.
Contraception also saves some lives.
Viagra is an elective and covered under most insurance plans. It apparently improves the quality of life..
Contraception is economic empowerment. Contraception reduces the need for abortion. I would think everyone would be in favor of that.
Agree. That’s not elective.
Many people have moral values based on religion and hold to them strongly because it is a matter of obedience to their faith. Why must you always doubt that there are people of faith like that? If it was not a matter of a genuine belief for those who own a business as large as Hobby Lobby, do you really think they would have taken something like this to the courts?
Yes, I do believe they would have. I don’t believe you have a right to affect that many people because of YOUR beliefs. I have known people who held very firm religious beliefs about segregation. They could back it up chapter and verse with bible quotes, etc. I have never doubted their sincerity. Now…can they ignore integration because of their religious beliefs? No.
Why must I doubt there are people like that? I don’t doubt there ARE people like that. I just challenge their right to defy laws because of their religious beliefs…they are doing the s-t-r-e-t-c-h on this one. They are more than welcome not to use contraception. That isn’t any of my business. They are not welcome to deny employees a product the rest of America gets. It really isn’t any of their business.
Actually, I think you may be barking up the wrong tree here. From sources I’ve seen, Hobby Lobby has no problem covering 16 out of 20 FDA-approved contraceptives in the ACA plan. Their objections in this case seem to concern four remaining items considered to be life-ending abortifacients. The owners appear to be focused on abortion rather than contraceptives.
You can hollar about contraceptives when the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor comes to SCOTUS.
Count on me hollering if they have employees.
I have seen no sources that ok 16 contraceptives. If they even exist, please list them here.
That is another discussion.
There are lots of misconceptions about contraception. The morning after pill is not the same as RU-486. The morning after pill prevents ovulation.
Contraception costs prevent many young women from using it effectively. Not everyone can or will take generic contraception from Walmart.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/24/what-media-should-know-about-hobby-lobby-and-th/198591#pill
Contraception Coverage – There are many reasons to make contraception available as part of the plan – and nothing is free, ie, one pays a price for well care. Enough of this government paying for it – I pay for well care whether I use it or not – as does everyone with a commercial policy.
Why should contraception be part of well care – one would think the anti abortion crowd would welcome abortion prevention. They are also used by many woman for their well being, family planning and other issues (endometriosis, etc), as well as being able to enjoy sex just as a man does because he does not get pregnant.
This is a slippery slope – and it comes because of Citizens United – as what happens when religious beliefs supersede other laws – the Rastafarian’s use marijuana, animal sacrifice ritual, racial discrimination, blood transfusion – it does not stop. Who defines what a religion is (The Church of Euthanasia – no kidding)? And what is a valid belief. What happens when a Muslim says he does not want to pay late payment interest to the IRS?
All excellent points, Pat.
Also, forgot to mention – that the mandate does not mandate that people actually use the contraception – just that it must be available in the plan.
Also note that until a few years ago, the GOP offered abortion services in their medical plan – I guess because they felt it was necessary.
Little Sisters of the Poor is a slightly different issue. They are exempt from paying for coverage in their plan but do not want to sign the form to transition the payment of coverage to their insurance provider – the Christian Brothers Employee Benefits – who will also does not want to provide coverage.
The only things that should be covered in health care insurance is whatever the company wants to offer and people will agree to accept as benefits by working for that company.
Its a contract.
The government should not be involved. The gov’t has no business telling citizens what they MUST buy.
You sure are willing to turn over a lot of your personal business and choices to big business. (13,000 employees to me IS big business)
If there weren’t regulations, most companies would give you the cheapest policy in the world and act like they were doing you a favor. It would be an unholy alliance between 2 scum buckets, all trying to screw over the employee. That’s what ACA is trying to fix.
Cargo, you continue to advocate for the corporations. I will continue to advocate for the individual. That’s really what it boils down to.
“The Greens and their family businesses – who have no moral objection to providing 16 of the 20 FDA-approved contraceptives required under the HHS mandate and do so at no additional cost to employees under their self-insured health plan”
http://www.hobbylobbycase.com/
This is an arbitrary decision based on non-science. The morning after pill prevents ovulation. It doesn’t cause spontaneous abortions.
“Once again, I cannot believe that in the year 2014, we are still discussing who gets to use contraception. ”
That statement is a little confusing to me, I don’t know of anyone who is discussing who gets to use contraception. Anyone and everyone gets to use it, that has nothing to do with this court case.
If you cannot afford it you cannot use it. I also don’t have access to Dom Perignon. I can’t afford it. The more effective methods are the more costly.
Do you want your boss to decide if you can treat contraception like any other medicine?
Cargo – I don’t disagree but when they tell commercial entities that they MUST treat all comers….how do you envision that being paid for? Currently we all pay for non-insured folks. Should we not treat people that show up the ER?
Not reforming our healthcare system in the US is putting our entire country at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world. Our costs are increasing, our outcomes are decreasing – and no attempt to change it since Hilary tried.
@Andyh
Good point Andy – if they repealed the EMLTA – where Congress told healthcare providers that they must provide care, there would not be as many people trying to ride the system and push their risk onto me and you. EMLTA allows one to shirk their own personal responsibility which I thought was a Conservative trait.
What is not talked about in this case is also the need for Contraception counseling, which Hobby Lobby also does not want to cover in their insurance coverage. So, when a young single newly married lady goes to the Gyn, the visit will not be covered if it is about birth control options. Kinda like the blockage of covering elder care doctors to talk about end of life treatments with their patients during a covered visit.
Avoiding both topics runs up costs into the millions.
I have as much respect for someone not thinking that birth control is moral behavior as I do for someone who thinks that eating pork is a sin. Or believes that women should wear veils, and not take them off for drivers license photos. None.
If you believe that each religion should be free to pick and choose which elements of social policy to fund, then I think you’re an idiot. I’ll found a religion where I believe that paying taxes is against God’s will. Maybe I’ll just object to paying employees’ health insurance if they ever ate pork. And so on and so forth.
Or, if you believe that Christianity’s rules should be worked around but not other religion’s, because of our “Judeo-Christian” tradition, or whatever … I still think you’re an idiot.
These arguments are stupid, and are being undertaken only as part of the right’s incessant, obsessive, raze-it-to-the-ground-at-all-costs war on Obamacare.
I’m sure they’ll lose a few more female voters over this stupidity. The behavior is self-destructive. But they can’t stop doing it. The GOP catered to stupidity and religious bigotry and white male privilege for a long time, and the chicken are coming home to roost as they say. They’re undercutting their ability to win office in the mass electorate.
I’ll found a religion where I believe that paying taxes is ungodly. I’ll believe it self-evident that all wealth derives from the mechanics of the wealthy, whose blessings flow downwards to the rest of us, and to whom all wealth should be directed and allowed to remain. I’ll call it “Republicanism”. And on the seventh day I’ll rest, and see that it is f***ing stupid.
@Moon-howler
I am advocating for the individual. Individuals make contracts. Governments mandate through force. Individuals can decide whether or not to work for someone.
Businesses offered quite good policies even before mandates. It was a bargaining chip to get good employees.
The federal gov’t has no constitutional authority to mandate that people sell or buy certain things. That the law has been interpreted to be constitutional is causing the Framers to rotate at high speed in their graves.
You wish they were rotating in their graves. Many of them would be rotating over slavery being outlawed.
The Constitution was a work of compromise. I doubt that any of them were all that satisfied with the end result.
@Rick Bentley
So…you don’t mind, then, if everyone starts paying more taxes then.
Good. Let’s confiscate all wealth until everyone is equal. You should like that. I mean..you DO want to pay for all of these expensive government programs, right? And no one should get a free ride. Its not like their money belongs to them.
Wealth will never be equal. Dream on. I do think that people who have more should chip in a little for those who have very little. Operative word is a little. I think people should have a roof over their heads and food. I think they should have affordable access to a doctor when they are sick. I think people should be able to afford their rx’s.
If I have to pay a little more so someone living on $800 a month social security cab take their heart medicine, I am ok with that.
@Andyh
That’s a good question. Just how often does that happen? I don’t think that its as common as we think.
Why aren’t these people getting liens upon them? Poor? Then why aren’t they on medicaid? If they don’t have insurance, put liens on future earnings, etc. There are solutions.
If they cannot afford it…then how can they afford insurance? We’re still paying for THEIR insurance.
Its cheaper just for society to cover actual usage than tying it to a system like Obamacare. People are losing insurance and cannot afford their new rates. If we expand Medicaid…we WILL go broke.
Give the hospitals that treat indigent people tax breaks…..or give them tax credits. Heck..I’d be okay with allowing hospitals to pay NO taxes.
No, it really isn’t cheaper. Prove to me it’s cheaper. You can’t, because it isn’t. It happens daily. People go to the hospital daily who cannot pay their bills. A hospital visit sometimes costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. So you get a judgement. People move to other locations. Then there is the old you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip.
Many years ago I worked at the University of Virginia hospital in the business office. Some people paid a dollar a week for 20 years. I think you are looking at this through very middle class eyes. People are far more mobile now than they used to be.
What are you going to put a lien on, city boy? So they are living in a rental unit and driving a beater car worth a grand at best.
Cargo, as I’ve said before, we should actually be paying more taxes right now. To pay for the things we are consuming and spending. Instead we’ve chosen to pretend that we can pay in less than we spend, accrue massive debt, and devalue current assets and money. So would I mind if we paid more taxes, say something like the rate we were paying in 1999 when the budget was in the black … no, I wouldn’t.
Should we confiscatre wealth until everyone is equal? No. Should we tax income and assets, rather than letting the wealthy and their families keep what they have in perpetutity? Yes.
Do we spend more on “expensive government programs” than other developed nations? No. Are we the greatest nation on earth? Yes. Does the right wing in America use the fact of inevitable welfare abuse to create a false impression to people, so as to manipulate them into letting the wealthy keep more of their wealth to themselves than is healthy for America? Yes.
Does the wealthy’s money “belong to them”? Arguably not. Much wealth is based on land ownership. Land was originally “acquired” by putting a flag in it and claiming that it now belonged to someone. By creating an arguably false concept of “ownership” of goods and services, we (humanity) have been able to create a basis for a complex economic system that evolves and tends to deliver goods and services for the betterment of humanity. It should be noted though that when the system begins to break down, i.e. when a large divide opens up between rich and poor, the masses will revolt and by physical force retake and redivide the land and assets. it happened in communist countries in the last century; it happened in France in the 18th Century; it happens. The very land we stand on was ostensibly “owned” by Britian, until we took it from them by gunpoint. So there’s a limit to how much of their wealth the wealthy can keep to themselves, practically. They don’t really “own” it in an absolute sense. The concept of ownership as with every other artifice our society enacts is intended to serve the common good.
So, my advice to you is to render unto Ceasar, refrain from whining about it, and stop crying crocodile tears for the high income bracket earners.
I have not one shred of sympathy for the high income bracket earners. They are whiners for the most part. People like Buffett and Gates do for others. Many don’t unless its a big tax write off for them.
Every day of the year. People come into an ER all the time looking for services. Some people also walk out on the deductible.
It does cost money to go through the legal process of attaching a lien to property, if there is any property. And garnishing wages also costs money. IF the person comes up with a payment plan, the Hospital must accept it, even if it pays out over say 10 years.
That is why they call it Medicaid Expansion.
Obamacare expands the private insurance market more than it expands the Medicaid market. Why the opposition to allow more private insurance companies to participate.
Some Hospitals are not for profit and do not pay any taxes, some do. Some of the funding has been removed via Sequestration. Of course you are OK with a hospital paying no taxes – you think no one should be paying any tax. Hospitals are constantly waiting for an individual to come into their ER with life threatening injuries that can rack up a bill of $1Million is a short time frame – Surgery, ICU, Meds – why should a Hospital have to bear that risk?
” into letting the wealthy keep more of their wealth to themselves than is healthy for America?”
Arguably that its not theirs?
There’s no argument. Their property is their property. All property belongs to you first. Period.
@Pat.Herve
You’re right. The Hospital shouldn’t worry about that risk.
Yet….how is paying for it the way it is now…different than paying for it…in a different way in higher taxes or higher rates to pay for medicaid or subsidized insurance.
Since the fed’l govt demands that hospitals work for free….set up a reimbursement program from them. I mean…. either way the taxpayer is paying for it. But there is less gov’t intrusion into the private citizen’s life that way.
Obamacare raises rates, lowers choice, and doesn’t work. Medicaid expansion will break state budgets. There is less insurance participation in that there is less choice.
Why is it that y’all think that you will stop paying for poor people if O’care takes over…if it ever does. With Obama illegal changing the regulations every week, who knows what’s going to happen? With Sebellius lying to Congress about the status, how will we actually know if its working? And since the uninsured are STILL not signing up because of various reasons….its NOT going to work.
To most Catholics and many evangelicals, abortion at any stage of pregnancy is a major sin against God. I don’t give a crap how anyone else views the business of abortion; but, if we insist in forcing the religiously devout to violate the sacred tenets of their own faith by participating in any way in abortion, we should be ashamed of ourselves for acting like tyrants.
Preventing ovulation is simply NOT an abortion. I personally don’t think that preventing a fertilized ovum from implanting is an abortion. The medical community would agree with me.
I don’t see fertilized eggs as babies. Development needs to move considerably down the old continuum before I start seeing diapers and rattles.
I have known a lot of Catholics and I am not sure I would agree with the term “most” I think I would substitute that word “most” with “some.” It’s funny what people will admit to believing or thinking once they know you aren’t going to hound them. When I was actively involved in the pro choice movement, I would say over half the people I dealt with on a weekly basis would say they were Catholic.
@Cargosquid
cargo – you truly do not understand the way out healthcare system worked before and how the ACA is trying to change the system. You are actually advocating for a single payer system.
@cargo – our local ER loses millions each year. I can’t recall the number but I thought it was around $5 million? Caring for people who can’t or won’t pay. Those losses are covered by those that have health insurance and whatever payments the feds and states make to those institutions. That care is mandated by the Feds.
The taxpayers are policy holders are covering the cost for that healthcare that is delivered in the single most expensive way possible. I don’t know that obamacare is the solution but doing things the way we have been sucks just as badly. Worse, it isn’t sustainable.
I think it was $50 million several years ago. That might have been for both Prince William and Potomac–but it was a huge amount of money. It was people who just walked on their bills. Its hard to blame them. How does the average person making $20k or less ever repay a $100,000 hospital bill? They don’t. How does someone making $20,000 afford health care for their family? They don’t.
Only comment: Moon, contraception is elective. With few exceptions, birth control pills cure nothing. Condoms cure nothing. Diaphragms, foams, IUDs, sponges cure nothing. Pregnancy is not a disease–it is the result, either conscious or unconscious, of a sexual act. And, in truth, taking Lipitor or any other statin is purely elective. Unforeseen consequences should be expected. Similar to contraception–you don’t have to do it but unexpected consequences should be expected.
@Wolverine
well then, we should be ashamed of ourselves when the courts rule that a Jehovah Witness gets a court ordered blood transfusion or when others consider faith healing for children and are overruled by the courts. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/faith-healing-religious-freedom-vs-child-protection/ I will take that shame to save a life.
“Obamacare raises rates,”
Most people pay less. It raises rates on the people who were previously uninsured though.
“lowers choice”
Most people have more choices. Of those who don’t, the options no longer available are bad plans. This is like saying that ou5r government reduced choice decades ago when they mandated that meat with worms in it could no longer be sold to poor people.
“and doesn’t work.”
That remains to be seen. I’d think it’ll work better than the previous system … low bar to cross, for sure.
Why is it that ONLY women have to suffer the bullshit of someone’s religion? Why is it ONLY women are either forced to abstain from sex or pay for their own medication to prevent pregnancy. How about this for why IUD’s should be covered. I have MS, I have a long history of the women in my family dying from breast cancer, hormonal BC is NOT a viable option. Why should me and my husband be punished financially if I DON”T WANT ANOTHER BABY? I struggle with the energy to care for the two I have. But, you know, apparently what I do in my bedroom is an employers business. The IUD no more causes an abortion than the regular pill, but they were smart enough not to go after that one. But, don’t think, for one minute, that isn’t next.
http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html
Well, the religions have been created by men. So there you go.
Great point Rick 🙁
I am home from Hell.
@Rick Bentley
Millions have lost their insurance or have their rates raised. The idea that only junk policies rates were lower is completely wrong. I personally know four families that had GREAT insurance. Now…their rates have gone up and their deductibles have gone up and they’ve had their choices reduced. AND one family lost the doctor they’ve seen for years.
My sister in law’s family had their rates TRIPLE. For lesser coverage. The idea that all those plans were junk is pure, unmitigated BS.
I find it so odd that only happens to republican families. It’s like they were being targeted or something.
Cargo,
Is this all in Virginia?
Moon you must be right! Obamacare is biased against Republicans!
I agree that OC has turned out to be less than optimal but pointing at the system as it was and declaring it successful wasn’t valid either. We already have universal coverage – if you go to an ER you will be treated. It’s the most expensive and least effective way to treat people. We all pay for it through premiums and our taxes. Kind of like the car tax reduction in VA. You still pay it, just through income tax now. The other big problem is that most people have no idea what it costs. Guys like me end up paying the lions share of premiums and increases. At some point the end result was always going to be employers would stop providing (or reducing) insurance coverage of any sort. A trend in this direction was already emerging – many employers have started providing a fixed subsidy for employees and not simply covering it or paying a percentage.
About the only way to come up with a better system would be to form a commission with the singular charge of taking out all existing regulations and forming a better scheme. Federal mandates have really twisted the existing system and those mandates need to go or be part of a better scheme. Some reforms would be simple: eliminate the restriction on selling insurance across state lines. Some would be more difficult: untangling mandates and medicaid stuff. It’s a bit of a pipe dream but it’s probably the only efficient way to have it work. Failing that, we’ll do the reforms election by election…..
Those are some good ideas, Andy. (I wonder what chump would volunteer to sit on that commission?)
Andy, healthcare cost as it related to our GDP was unsustainable. At some point the hospitals would go bankrupt, as insurance became more and more expensive, fewer and fewer people would have access to coverage. The trajectory we were on was headed for a massive implosion. I read why just moving across state lines won’t work, and it all revolves around the specific population, what they would WANT in a plan and what would then be left out. Maternity coverage was a huge issue, in that insurance companies would end up dropping it. The fix isn’t easy and the idea that we can’t have floor that no one falls through is the first place to start. How does Germany do it? Well, they seem to have a mix of socialism and capitalism within their healthcare system. The idea that we all aren’t ALREADY paying for the uninsured is silly, we all know, in some way, we are paying for the people that don’t have insurance, either through premiums or hospital bills.
I always smile when Elena uses the word “trajectory.” She just doesn’t seem like a trajectory kinda lady.