IOM Decision May Force Americans to Have Pro-Abortion Health Care

[juliee]

IOM Decision May Force Americans to Have Pro-Abortion Health Care

Washington, DC – Yesterday, the Institute of Medicine recommended that the Obama administration approve new guidelines calling for the Obamacare health care system to require every health insurance plan to cover all FDA-approved birth control drugs.

lifenews.com/2011/07/20/iom-decision-may-force-americans-to-have-pro-abortion-health-care/

 

[Rence]

That doesn’t mean that people must have abortions. That means that they have coverage. We have access to all kinds of sins, yet it is we who choose to either sin or not sin. For example, birth control pills are as available as Skittles. You can even get them online. If you’re over 18, you can get them without a prescription, in person or online. Condoms are available at most stores, even grocery stores.

This legislation does provide benefits for abortion services, but it also provides benefits for other services. I’d rather have benefits for a range of services, from which we can pick what we need, instead of having only a few benefits.

 

[kimmielittle]

That doesn’t mean that people must have abortions. That means that they have coverage. We have access to all kinds of sins, yet it is we who choose to either sin or not sin. For example, birth control pills are as available as Skittles.

I’m not forced to buy or pay for your Skittles.

This legislation does provide benefits for abortion services, but it also provides benefits for other services. I’d rather have benefits for a range of services, from which we can pick what we need, instead of having only a few benefits.

It’s not a Legislation act it’s an Administrative act…circumventing the Rights of People who don’t support it.

AND “the ends doesn’t justify the means”…right? The good that might or might not be present …is FAR removed from the immoral act of abortion.

Why does this administration tie ANY GOOD thing it might accomplish with health - to the procurement of Abortion and abortionists? Can we not see an agenda …draped in a pretty dress?

 

[JimG]

It’s not a Legislation act it’s an Administrative act…circumventing the Rights of People who don’t support it./QUOTEIt’s legislation by regulation, which is pretty much the easiest way for an administration to get what it wants. Less fighting with congress.

When Congress wouldn’t pass cap and trade, for example, the administration simply had agencies write new regs to accomplish the same thing.

 

[kimmielittle]

It’s not a Legislation act it’s an Administrative act…circumventing the Rights of People who don’t support it. It’s legislation by regulation, which is pretty much the easiest way for an administration to get what it wants. Less fighting with congress.

When Congress wouldn’t pass cap and trade, for example, the administration simply had agencies write new regs to accomplish the same thing.

Yeppers!!!

 

[Rence]

I’m not forced to buy or pay for your Skittles.

It’s not a Legislation act it’s an Administrative act…circumventing the Rights of People who don’t support it.

AND “the ends doesn’t justify the means”…right? The good that might or might not be present …is FAR removed from the immoral act of abortion.

Why does this administration tie ANY GOOD thing it might accomplish with health - to the procurement of Abortion and abortionists? Can we not see an agenda …draped in a pretty dress?

Hey, I totally understand you’re upset with it. I’m sorry about that. The point of my post is not that you shouldn’t be upset about it, but that I am not upset about it. In fact, the more benefits available, the better IMOHO. And you’re not forced to pay for my benefits. I pay for my own

 

[kimmielittle]

And you’re not forced to pay for my benefits. I pay for my own

Actually, no…ALL Plans… will be forced to have it - thus helping to pay for yours.

 

[Rence]

Actually, no…ALL Plans… will be forced to have it - thus helping to pay for yours.

Again, I understand you’re opposed to it. I’m in favor of it. And since I pay my own premiums, I am responsible for my own insurance and enjoy having more benefits than less, it’s something I appreciate. Sorry you don’t.

 

[Trader]

The proposal also does not include conscience protection for doctors, nurses or pharmacists. A Catholic pharmicist could not accept any insurance plans at all if he chose not to dispense pills or devices that violate his conscience. Since Obamacare also requires everyone to buy insurance or pay a fine, the practical effect would be to put all practicing Catholics out of the pharmacy business.

By the way, both hormonal contraceptives and IUDs work at least part of the time by causing a fertilized egg not implant in the uterus wall. In these cases they are not true contraceptives, but abortifacients.

 

[seekerz]

The proposal also does not include conscience protection for doctors, nurses or pharmacists. A Catholic pharmicist could not accept any insurance plans at all if he chose not to dispense pills or devices that violate his conscience. Since Obamacare also requires everyone to buy insurance or pay a fine, the practical effect would be to put all practicing Catholics out of the pharmacy business.

By the way, both hormonal contraceptives and IUDs work at least part of the time by causing a fertilized egg not implant in the uterus wall. In these cases they are not true contraceptives, but abortifacients.

Which insurance plans can a conscientious Catholic pharmacist accept now? How many *existing * insurance plans do not cover birth control and abortions? To me, that is the real question which I can’t seem to find the answer to.

 

[Corki]

Which insurance plans can a conscientious Catholic pharmacist accept now? How many *existing * insurance plans do not cover birth control and abortions? To me, that is the real question which I can’t seem to find the answer to.

The reason the Cardinal spoke out on this is that it would extend to all plans, including those offered by Catholic and other private organizations. As the industry operates now, most larger organizations have the abilty to tailor a plan that meets their organizational needs. A Catholic school, for example does not have to include contraception, abortion or sterilization coverage under its plan. The proposed regulations would require all plans that are “approved” to cover the same things including abortion and contraception. For now, an organization could still negotiate a non-approved plan but the organization and its employees could be fined or penalized for doing so.

As for the pharmacist, it’s not that he would only accept some plans but that he would accept any plan but not fill certain prescriptions. The proposed law would eliminate the pharmacies ability to accept any insurance plan if it did not also fill contraceptive prescriptions.

Today, a pharmacy has full control over which plans it accepts and which drugs it stocks. The only exceptions, as far as I know, are Plan B drugs in some states. (and ipacac syrup, which is generally a required item though not a precription)

 

[seekerz]

The reason the Cardinal spoke out on this is that it would extend to all plans, including those offered by Catholic and other private organizations. As the industry operates now, most larger organizations have the abilty to tailor a plan that meets their organizational needs. A Catholic school, for example does not have to include contraception, abortion or sterilization coverage under its plan. The proposed regulations would require all plans that are “approved” to cover the same things including abortion and contraception. For now, an organization could still negotiate a non-approved plan but the organization and its employees could be fined or penalized for doing so.

As for the pharmacist, it’s not that he would only accept some plans but that he would accept any plan but not fill certain prescriptions. The proposed law would eliminate the pharmacies ability to accept any insurance plan if it did not also fill contraceptive prescriptions.

Today, a pharmacy has full control over which plans it accepts and which drugs it stocks. The only exceptions, as far as I know, are Plan B drugs in some states. (and ipacac syrup, which is generally a required item though not a precription)

My question was not whether pharmacies have control over the plans they accept. It was quite specific but I can rephrase: what difference would these proposals make to what Catholic pharmacists do now with regard to plans covering birth control and abortion. Are they not already for the most part accepting such plans?

I don’t really get the ‘plan’ thing either. The very similar arguments for government subsidizing insurance plans both with and without abortion coverage (even with separate payments for abortion by users) got a lot of heat during the health reform debate, but isn’t that similar to how insurance companies deal with the abortion issue? Remember, a single company may underwrite plans both covering and not covering abortion. I really fail to see any difference other than tax dollars versus non-tax dollars being involved.

P.S. As for pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, as a Catholic I can see their point but I also see that they may not be party to all the facts and circumstances needed to make a moral judgment. There are several drugs which can be used both for moral and immoral purposes, so on what basis (other than medical information obtained from a layperson) can they make such judgments?

 

[Corki]

My question was not whether pharmacies have control over the plans they accept. It was quite specific but I can rephrase: what difference would these proposals make to what Catholic pharmacists do now with regard to plans covering birth control and abortion. Are they not already for the most part accepting such plans?

Sorry, I mushed two points together.

Right now a pharmacy can decide which insurance plans to accept. They negotiate reimbursement rates, which co-pays apply to which drug, etc. There are plans that do not cover contraception or abortion drugs. A pharmacy could, now, chose to accept only those plans for reimbursement. Under the new laws, those plans would be illegal.

I don’t really get the ‘plan’ thing either. The very similar arguments for government subsidizing insurance plans both with and without abortion coverage (even with separate payments for abortion by users) got a lot of heat during the health reform debate, but isn’t that similar to how insurance companies deal with the abortion issue? Remember, a single company may underwrite plans both covering and not covering abortion. I really fail to see any difference other than tax dollars versus non-tax dollars being involved.

Right now a company may self-insure for a plan that does not cover abortion or contraception. Under the new rules, and already under some state rules, they will not have that option.

P.S. As for pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, as a Catholic I can see their point but I also see that they may not be party to all the facts and circumstances needed to make a moral judgment. There are several drugs which can be used both for moral and immoral purposes, so on what basis (other than medical information obtained from a layperson) can they make such judgments

But why should a pharmacist who is self employed or who owns a pharmacy be required to carry any particular class of drug? For example, some pharmacies don’t carry controlled substances (schedule C drugs) which have legitimate uses but are also widely abused. The law doesn’t require they do so, why should the law be able to require the morning after pill?

Or why should a drug store have to stock over-the-counter items such as condoms which don’t have a moral purpose?

Pharmacies are retail sales organizations. They need to make a profit. Imagine a small pharmacy in a Mormon town (or Ave Maria, FL) being required to carry the full variety of available oral contraceptive pills and the morning after pill. Why should the law require them to stock drugs that will probably sit on the shelf until they expire and are trashed?

Do we tell every sporting goods store that they have to carry equipment for a set list of sports? Do we tell every resturant that it must have a vegitarian option? Do we even tell every OB/GYN that they have to have an on-site ultrasound machine? No. It is one thing to tell a business owner what they cannot sell (ie tobacco to minors, alcohol without a licence, fireworks except for two weeks in July) but it is quite another to tell a business what it must sell or worse what it must stock regardless of whether they can reasonably expect to sell.

 

[seekerz]

I agree with you on businesses being free to choose what they sell. The point I was making is more accurately described as choosing what and when to dispense. I don’t think the average pharmacist has the information required to know when a drug is going to be used for an immoral purpose, so I don’t think he should get to pick and choose what and when to dispense. It’s one thing to tell me an item is not on a restaurant menu, it’s quite another to say you won’t serve it to me but you will serve it to someone else based on your personal values.

What I meant by not understanding the plan thing is this: a plan is not an insurance company, it’s just a package of benefits (likely one of many) offered by an insurance company. So what’s the difference between the government subsidizing plans with and without abortion coverage and premiums being paid to an insurance company which does the same? Note, I’m not saying either is right - just asking what the difference is other than the source of funds.

Sorry, I mushed two points together.

Right now a pharmacy can decide which insurance plans to accept. They negotiate reimbursement rates, which co-pays apply to which drug, etc. There are plans that do not cover contraception or abortion drugs. A pharmacy could, now, chose to accept only those plans for reimbursement. Under the new laws, those plans would be illegal.

Right now a company may self-insure for a plan that does not cover abortion or contraception. Under the new rules, and already under some state rules, they will not have that option.

But why should a pharmacist who is self employed or who owns a pharmacy be required to carry any particular class of drug? For example, some pharmacies don’t carry controlled substances (schedule C drugs) which have legitimate uses but are also widely abused. The law doesn’t require they do so, why should the law be able to require the morning after pill?

Or why should a drug store have to stock over-the-counter items such as condoms which don’t have a moral purpose?

Pharmacies are retail sales organizations. They need to make a profit. Imagine a small pharmacy in a Mormon town (or Ave Maria, FL) being required to carry the full variety of available oral contraceptive pills and the morning after pill. Why should the law require them to stock drugs that will probably sit on the shelf until they expire and are trashed?

Do we tell every sporting goods store that they have to carry equipment for a set list of sports? Do we tell every resturant that it must have a vegitarian option? Do we even tell every OB/GYN that they have to have an on-site ultrasound machine? No. It is one thing to tell a business owner what they cannot sell (ie tobacco to minors, alcohol without a licence, fireworks except for two weeks in July) but it is quite another to tell a business what it must sell or worse what it must stock regardless of whether they can reasonably expect to sell.

 

[TimothyH]

Again, I understand you’re opposed to it. I’m in favor of it. And since I pay my own premiums, I am responsible for my own insurance and enjoy having more benefits than less, it’s something I appreciate. Sorry you don’t.

It’s a pool of shared risk designed so that those who have low risk, like those who exercise and eat right or the young, pay for those who have high risk like the obese or the elderly. More benefits to you = someone elses cost.

We appreciate insurance. We have insurance too.

What we don’t appreciate is having to pay for cutting babies into pieces, sucking them into jars and carrying them away as biohazard waste to be incinerated so that sluts and gigolos can enjoy an orgasm whenever they feel like it.

-Tim-

 

[Corki]

I agree with you on businesses being free to choose what they sell. The point I was making is more accurately described as choosing what and when to dispense. I don’t think the average pharmacist has the information required to know when a drug is going to be used for an immoral purpose, so I don’t think he should get to pick and choose what and when to dispense. It’s one thing to tell me an item is not on a restaurant menu, it’s quite another to say you won’t serve it to me but you will serve it to someone else based on your personal values.

For a pharmacy, it’s not selling it to some people but not to others. It’s a pharmacy that doesn’t want to carry a drug **at all **but being required to by the government. This is what has happened already at the state level with the morning after pill.

(as an aside, there actually was a city proposal a few years back to require resturants to refuse to serve fattening food to people they deemed overweight - it didn’t pass )

What I meant by not understanding the plan thing is this: a plan is not an insurance company, it’s just a package of benefits (likely one of many) offered by an insurance company. So what’s the difference between the government subsidizing plans with and without abortion coverage and premiums being paid to an insurance company which does the same? Note, I’m not saying either is right - just asking what the difference is other than the source of funds

There is virtually no difference for an employee except where the money comes from. My taxes don’t fund any employee plans but they would be funding government plans. The conscience issue is for the organization.

For example, I am covered under insurance provided by my husband’s company that covers contraception but not elective abortion. Nothing I can do about that but the big-wigs in HR had a choice. The Catholic University down the road uses the same big insurance company but does not include either contraception or abortion because that’s what the big-wigs in *their *HR department decided. The new proposed regulations would take that choice away unless conscience protections are reintroduced.

 

[seekerz]

For a pharmacy, it’s not selling it to some people but not to others. It’s a pharmacy that doesn’t want to carry a drug **at all **but being required to by the government. This is what has happened already at the state level with the morning after pill.

(as an aside, there actually was a city proposal a few years back to require resturants to refuse to serve fattening food to people they deemed overweight - it didn’t pass )

There is virtually no difference for an employee except where the money comes from. My taxes don’t fund any employee plans but they would be funding government plans. The conscience issue is for the organization.

For example, I am covered under insurance provided by my husband’s company that covers contraception but not elective abortion. Nothing I can do about that but the big-wigs in HR had a choice. The Catholic University down the road uses the same big insurance company but does not include either contraception or abortion because that’s what the big-wigs in *their *HR department decided. The new proposed regulations would take that choice away unless conscience protections are reintroduced.

I don’t see how these are truly conscience protections when all the money ultimately goes to the same insurance company, benefits notwithstanding (and separate pools of funds notwithstanding), but I get your point. The reality is that unless we form completely separate insurance companies, we end up supporting an entity which serves people on either side of the abortion/BC issue and, living in a country where not everyone is Catholic or anti-abortion, that is probably unavoidable if we want to be insured.

 

[Corki]

I don’t see how these are truly conscience protections when all the money ultimately goes to the same insurance company, benefits notwithstanding (and separate pools of funds notwithstanding), but I get your point. The reality is that unless we form completely separate insurance companies, we end up supporting an entity which serves people on either side of the abortion/BC issue and, living in a country where not everyone is Catholic or anti-abortion, that is probably unavoidable if we want to be insured.

Well, it isn’t quite necessary to have separate insurance companies. When a company is self insured, it’s premiums are separated from others who use the same company. So Company A pays premiums for it’s employees that are not used to pay claims for employees of Company B. The insurance regulations control that and also control the amount the insurance company can take out of the premiums for the adminstering of the claims.

So, yes, you are supporting an entity but with a wall that results in only the most remote material cooperation and no direct cooperation with an unsavory practice. And it works both ways. A company that wants abortion coverage but that scoffs at paying for anyone’s NFP classes can make sure it’s premiums aren’t used for that either. At that point of distance, it’s no worse than shopping at a store whose employees may have used their salaries to get an abortion.

 

[seekerz]

Well, it isn’t quite necessary to have separate insurance companies. When a company is self insured, it’s premiums are separated from others who use the same company. So Company A pays premiums for it’s employees that are not used to pay claims for employees of Company B. The insurance regulations control that and also control the amount the insurance company can take out of the premiums for the adminstering of the claims.

So, yes, you are supporting an entity but with a wall that results in only the most remote material cooperation and no direct cooperation with an unsavory practice. And it works both ways. A company that wants abortion coverage but that scoffs at paying for anyone’s NFP classes can make sure it’s premiums aren’t used for that either. At that point of distance, it’s no worse than shopping at a store whose employees may have used their salaries to get an abortion.

If that is the case, no problem in government using an even better “wall” by requiring those on plans which cover abortions to pay for them with separate personal checks. Right?

 

[Corki]

If that is the case, no problem in government using an even better “wall” by requiring those on plans which cover abortions to pay for them with personal checks. Right?

If that was the case, yes. That’s why the Church was insisting that abortion not be included in any “universal” health care plan. That would have meant that 1) abortions wouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars designated for health care plans and 2) organizations opposed to abortion could subscribe to single-payer plans without compromising moral principles.

But we know that’s not the way it turned out now, don’t we?