How can inclusion of contraceptives in the healthcare act be justified?

  • Thread starter Thread starter opus101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

opus101

Guest
There have been some widely publicized polls lately, the results of which point to the fact that a majority of American women use contraceptives. If this is true, then a majority of women have been able to obtain them. This is true especially for low-income women,as they can get free or reduced cost contraceptives at the local Planned Parenthood, through Medicaid, or through Title X.

In Title X, women who are at or below 100% of the poverty level can get free contraceptives, and those who are between 100% and 250% of the poverty level can get greatly reduced-cost contraceptives on a sliding scale.

This shows that practically no woman in the United States is in need of the healthcare inclusion of contraceptives.

Why is it included? There must be some reason. Could it be that it is just a “foot in the door” toward including abortion in the future? What are your thoughts?
 
I don’t think it’s a “foot in the door” for anything so malicious.

I think it’s because it’s something that most people consider reasonable health care.

Jehova’s Witnesses don’t allow blood transfusions, but, were I writing a law, I would still not allow a health care policy not to provide blood transfusions, since that is considered, to most people, reasonable healthcare. The fact that there are other ways to pay for it is not the issue; the government could create a seperate funding for blood transfusions, but I think it should still be included in normal medical insurance.

You can argue that it doesn’t need to be fully subsidized, and I’ll agree with you; it doesn’t need to be, but I think you’ll agree that the amount that it is subsidized is a much lesser issue than the fact that it is subsidized.

The other thing to think about is policy: if the courts rule that a Catholic-associated business does not need to provide X (whatever X may be), then that ruling can be used by others to say “Well Y is against my religion, so I don’t want to pay for Y.”
That is a dangerous slope.

In short, I think the guiding principle is less,
“MWAHAHAHA! Now we are one step closer to killing ALL the babies!”
and a lot closer to,
“Okay, the survey of things people expect from health insurance are: antibiotics, asprins… birth control, broken bone setting… cancer therapy… heart bypasses… tonsilectomies… and Zoloft.”
“Okay, let’s put all that in there.”
 
But you do have to concede that even some oral contraceptives terminate life in the womb - they have the capability of keeping the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. Catholics, and many others, believe that life begins at fertilization. Because of this, even some oral contraceptives are considered abortifacient.

But the original question was, since contraceptives are already available to all women, regardless of income level (in fact, more available to the poor), how is it justified that they be included in the healthcare act? And, aside from some treatments for endometriosis, etc., (which are permissible in Catholic moral teaching) what therapeutic value do contraceptives have? How can they be considered “healthcare’”?

I appreciate the fact that you posted a response to my original post, but it ended up being a bit off-topic. I’m not asking about religious exemptions here, I’m asking about how inclusion of contraceptions can be justified in the healthcare act.
 
LJH, the other inclusions that you mentioned (aspirin, antibiotics, cancer therapy, etc.) all have widely-used therapeutic value. With contraceptives, the most common use BY FAR is birth control. That is not “healthcare”. Why is there not a restriction in the healthcare act that allows only for therapeutic use of contraceptives?
 
They are labeling contraceptives as preventive care - like mammograms and physical examinations.

I agree that no one has a problem getting them under the old system. However there have been problems getting medical attention for some people without the healthcare plan. people who have reached their lifetime limits on insurance payouts, people who are “too rich” for medicaid, but too poor to pay insurance premiums, people who have pre-existing conditions: These people have healthcare problems, but not those who want contraceptives.
 
Because it’s something you need a prescription to get, ergo people think about it as “health care,” ergo they expect it to be covered by their health care insurance.

I’m not saying it’s necessarily right that it’s included, I just think that, to a non-Catholic, the idea wouldn’t occur to them. To most people it just comes up as “oh yeah, that’s something I go to the doctor for, I should have that covered.” And since enough people think that, it becomes the public perception.

In short, I’m saying that I don’t think the writers gave it nearly as much thought as the Catholic community does, be that for better or worse.
 
What makes forcing private insurance companies pay for contraceptives any different than making them pay for abortions and possibly self-assisted suicide down the road?

Less people get up and shout that its wrong? The solution to all of this is that everyone purchases their insurance separately, not through their employer and that the free market is allowed to offer a variety of policies that gives everyone a choice they can buy in good conscience. Let the Jehova’s Witnesses buy a policy that doesn’t force them to pay for blood transfusions they will never use. The current situation now allows employer’s to basically make the decision for their employees on what health insurance policy they will get. Either that or they end up paying way more to make their own choice.
 
opus101 said:
LJH, the other inclusions that you mentioned (aspirin, antibiotics, cancer therapy, etc.) all have widely-used therapeutic value. With contraceptives, the most common use BY FAR is birth control. That is not “healthcare”. Why is there not a restriction in the healthcare act that allows only for therapeutic use of contraceptives?
Click to expand...
“This is not healthcare” is right on the mark. The person receiving the contraceptives is not sick. The person receiving the contraceptives is not in danger of getting sick if they don’t receive the medication. The HHS contraceptive provision, while included in the health care bill, has absolutely nothing to do with health care. That is a bold faced lie.

Instead, the inclusion of contraceptives is supposed to ensure that a woman is like a man. That is, they are not to be burdened with carying or caring for a baby if, for any reason this causes some unpleasantness. I just don’t get the thinking that the baby can be destroyed (abortion and abortificients) as a suitable mean to the ends…Strikes me as kinda sick, barbaric and exceedingly selfish, actually…
 
Nate13 said:
What makes forcing private insurance companies pay for contraceptives any different than making them pay for abortions and possibly self-assisted suicide down the road?

Less people get up and shout that its wrong? The solution to all of this is that everyone purchases their insurance separately, not through their employer and that the free market is allowed to offer a variety of policies that gives everyone a choice they can buy in good conscience. Let the Jehova’s Witnesses buy a policy that doesn’t force them to pay for blood transfusions they will never use. The current situation now allows employer’s to basically make the decision for their employees on what health insurance policy they will get. Either that or they end up paying way more to make their own choice.
Click to expand...
:eek:kind of like a drive-thru McDonald’s -----“I’ll have the #5 value plan but with no blood transfusions and added hormone replacement therapy…” LOL!
 
kozlosap said:
:eek:kind of like a drive-thru McDonald’s -----“I’ll have the #5 value plan but with no blood transfusions and added hormone replacement therapy…” LOL!
Click to expand...
Your right, it should be dictated to us what coverage we need because we are all just too stupid to do it ourselves…:rolleyes:
 
That’s why this whole healthcare mandate stuff is wrong in general. With any other product that a person would be, be that insurance or McDonald’s or cars, people have a choice as to what features and benefits are included. Insurance companies can come out with different “packages” kind of like they have now that suits a variety of people. They can then price them accordingly for the risk they are taking on. That’s the “free market” aspect to things.

For the federal government to force a one-size-fits-all insurance on everyone is wrong…as we’re finding out now in the Supreme court.

God bless,
Bryan
 
bscastro said:
That’s why this whole healthcare mandate stuff is wrong in general. With any other product that a person would be, be that insurance or McDonald’s or cars, people have a choice as to what features and benefits are included. Insurance companies can come out with different “packages” kind of like they have now that suits a variety of people. They can then price them accordingly for the risk they are taking on. That’s the “free market” aspect to things.

For the federal government to force a one-size-fits-all insurance on everyone is wrong…as we’re finding out now in the Supreme court.

God bless,
Bryan
Click to expand...
In theory, no, but in practice, yes.

The requirement to obtain health insurance makes perfect sense to me. I say that because hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment.
Imagine if an car mechanic was told by the government that people needed cars, so he had to fix the car of anyone that came in, and then just hope that the person would pay for it. Every time this mechanic spent thousands of dollars in labor and materials, but didn’t get paid, he’s be out a lot of money. The only way he could stay in business would be to take the money lost to those who didn’t pay and distribute it as an extra cost amongst those who did pay, right? The mechanic doesn’t like this, nor do the people who actually pay their bills and now have to pay more.
There are two solutions to this: one says that he doesn’t need to fix cars until he knows they can pay (hospital emergency rooms do not have this kind of time, so this is not an option). The other option is to make a mandate saying everyone is required to be able to pay for at least the basic repairs they may need to get. In addition to making sure people foot their own bill, this would also probably get people in for more routine maintenance, and reduce the number of catastrophic problems the mechanic sees, saving everyone some money.

The operative line in the above diatribe is “everyone is required to be able to pay for at least *the basic *repairs.”
Thus, it makes sense that the government require people to have health insurance, and mark out a minimum list of things that the health insurance is required to cover.
I am NOT saying that birth control is necessarily one of them, but that the concept itself makes sense.

cargau said:
“This is not healthcare” is right on the mark. The person receiving the contraceptives is not sick. The person receiving the contraceptives is not in danger of getting sick if they don’t receive the medication. The HHS contraceptive provision, while included in the health care bill, has absolutely nothing to do with health care. That is a bold faced lie.
Click to expand...

My argument is that, for many people, it is a misconception and not a “bold-faced lie.”
I believe in the maxim, “never ascribe malice, when incompetance alone suffices as explanation.”
I’m not saying that BC actually counts as healthcare, I’m saying that people who don’t think to much about it beyond “well, I get it from a doctor and a pharmacy…” erroniously think it’s health care.
Again, I’m not saying they’re right in their beliefs, just that, for the average person, it’s an error of ignroace rather than part of some diabolical master plan.
 
Your argument is similar to the one used to back social security. A majority of the people that don’t have health insurance don’t have the money to pay for it though anyways. We are all going to be paying for their insurance anyways in Obamacare. What you need is a state offered option for people who can’t afford it and for those with preexisting conditions.

You then just need a process by which make sure people aren’t just waiting till they get sick to get healthcare from the public option and claim a preexisting condition. We already do something similar with welfare in making sure people are not just lounging in the safety net if they don’t need to be there.
 
Although I see your point the problem is who gets to determine what “basic” is. For people like Sibelius and the current administration, contraception is “basic” while things like cancer screening aren’t quite so - at least not enough to get fully subsidized.
 
I’m not sure if you’re asking on a political or spiritual level.
 
Tigress: I’m asking on a political level. It seems that contraceptives are already made available to all who cannot afford them, and those who can afford them can easily obtain them. It doesn’t seem like a healthcare necessity. Nor does it seem like contraceptives are necessary for health to begin with, except in a very few cases where they can be deemed therapeutic (in which case, they are permitted in Catholic morality). The vast majority of contraceptives are used to avoid pregnancy. Which is not a disease.
 
LJH_80 said:
In theory, no, but in practice, yes.

My argument is that, for many people, it is a misconception and not a “bold-faced lie.”
I believe in the maxim, “never ascribe malice, when incompetance alone suffices as explanation.”
I’m not saying that BC actually counts as healthcare, I’m saying that people who don’t think to much about it beyond “well, I get it from a doctor and a pharmacy…” erroniously think it’s health care.
Again, I’m not saying they’re right in their beliefs, just that, for the average person, it’s an error of ignroace rather than part of some diabolical master plan.
Click to expand...
We are not talking about the average Joe or Jane, we are talking about the leaders who are trying to push the “agenda”. And, it is a bold faced lie meant to deceive and confuse.

Not trying to be malicious, just calling it what it is…
 
opus101 said:
Tigress: I’m asking on a political level. It seems that contraceptives are already made available to all who cannot afford them, and those who can afford them can easily obtain them. It doesn’t seem like a healthcare necessity. Nor does it seem like contraceptives are necessary for health to begin with, except in a very few cases where they can be deemed therapeutic (in which case, they are permitted in Catholic morality). The vast majority of contraceptives are used to avoid pregnancy. Which is not a disease.
Click to expand...
They don’t NEED to include them. Everyone that I know (and there are quite a few) that wants birthcontrol can easily get it regarless of their economic status… They shouldn’t be able to include it though, not only because of the religious freedom infringment, but also because the government shouldn’t be able to force a private company to provide a certain service or product… Not to reuses this old one, but it’s like telling a Kosher deli that they HAVE to serve pork. Or telling a bar that they HAVE to purchase and sell a certain beverage. Or telling a hair stylist that they HAVE to provide a certain shampoo. The government is not supposed to be able to step in and tell private companies what they HAVE to provide…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top