Senate Dems stop "conscience exemption"

[TMC]

Ridiculous. For 220 years the federal government had nothing to say at all about insurance coverage. The states have had mandates (and like JimG, I think they are stupid). But not Uncle Sam.

That is untrue. The government has not been regulating insurance from day one, but insurance has long been a heavily regulated industry. In the 19th Centruy most of the regulation came from the states, but the federal government has been involved in regulating insurance since at least the 40s, maybe longer.

 

[Suudy]

That is untrue. The government has not been regulating insurance from day one, but insurance has long been a heavily regulated industry. In the 19th Centruy most of the regulation came from the states, but the federal government has been involved in regulating insurance since at least the 40s, maybe longer.

With regard to coverage mandates? Remember, this is the issue here.

 

[TMC]

With regard to coverage mandates? Remember, this is the issue here.

Yes, for one example look up the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). ERISA set certain coverage requirements for employer supplied health plans. Government regulation of health insurance is not new.

 

[Suudy]

Yes, for one example look up the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). ERISA set certain coverage requirements for employer supplied health plans. Government regulation of health insurance is not new.

My understanding of ERISA is not that any specific coverage is required to be provided, but that if it is provided, there are minimums for that coverage. Up to this point, the federal government has not mandated specific types of coverage must exist in any plan.

Edit: Here’s a fact sheet.

arlengroup.com/facts/fact_erisa.pdf

From it:
What are the provisions of the law?

ERISA does not require employers to provide benefits. However, the law does impose a number of administrative requirements including:

• Providing written plan documents that contain specific information and benefit provisions.
• Holding assets in trust unless certain exemptions are satisfied.
• Detailing procedures for reporting and appealing claims within the plan document. This includes reporting information to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Department of Labor (DOL), and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), as well as to plan participants.

ERISA mandates standards of conduct, responsibility, and obligation for plan fiduciaries and provides appropriate remedies, sanctions, and access to the Federal courts when responsibilities have been breached.

 

[TMC]

My understanding of ERISA is not that any specific coverage is required to be provided, but that if it is provided, there are minimums for that coverage. Up to this point, the federal government has not mandated specific types of coverage must exist in any plan.

Under ERISA it is not required that an employer provide any health insurance at all, but if health insurance is provided certain coverage minimums and other standards must be met. It is true that PPACA is the first time that health insurance was required by federal law, that is true. The suggestion was that the government has not previously been involved in regulating insurance coverage, which is wrong.

 

[Suudy]

Under ERISA it is not required that an employer provide any health insurance at all, but if health insurance is provided certain coverage minimums and other standards must be met.

But there are no specific types of coverage required. Only that if some sort of coverage is provided (say, maternity stays in hospitals), then it must be covered at some level. ERISA does not say that a benefit plan must cover maternity stays, only that if it does there are minimums.

It is true that PPACA is the first time that health insurance was required by federal law, that is true.

That is only part of the issue. Forcing organizations to provide insurance is a separate issue from forcing organizations to provide certain types of coverage within that insurance coverage. You’ll note that most of the outrage is over the latter.

The suggestion was that the government has not previously been involved in regulating insurance coverage, which is wrong.

I never said the federal government wasn’t involved in regulation. Rather, the federal government hasn’t been mandating individual benefits exist.

 

[TMC]

But there are no specific types of coverage required. Only that if some sort of coverage is provided (say, maternity stays in hospitals), then it must be covered at some level. ERISA does not say that a benefit plan must cover maternity stays, only that if it does there are minimums.

That is only part of the issue. Forcing organizations to provide insurance is a separate issue from forcing organizations to provide certain types of coverage within that insurance coverage. You’ll note that most of the outrage is over the latter.

I never said the federal government wasn’t involved in regulation. Rather, the federal government hasn’t been mandating individual benefits exist.

I can agree with you that the government has not mandated that benefits be given at all, but once they are given there are some fairly extensive and complex requirements about what they must be. To read the threads here, one would think the government completely ignored health insurance until Obama got elected. It has always been a heavily regulated industry.

 

[ProVobis]

This is nonsense.

If you read on:

Critics say that’s still an infringement on religious freedom, but a Senate measure weakening the mandate was shot down in the upper chamber on Thursday.

Paul and all of the other GOP presidential candidates criticized the proposed mandate as an attack on religious liberty. But Paul on Thursday also criticized it as an attempt to push the market out of the insurance business.

 

[Trader]

“The vote is unlikely to end the fight over the contraception rule, though, as Blunt said the issue won’t go away until the administration backs down and gives a broader religious exemption to the coverage mandate.” - Politico

Today I received this email. The official response of the Democratic party is that forced access to free contraception is a fund raising opportunity.

Yesterday, the Senate voted down an attempt by the GOP to let employers opt out of providing any medical service they personally objected to – but the bill was really drafted to let them opt out of covering contraception.

Every Senate Republican voted for it – except for one.

That one was Senator Olympia Snowe, who this week announced she’s retiring from the Senate due to the “polarization and partisanship that has overtaken Washington.”

This vote showed that things like curbing access to contraception aren’t just on the Tea Party wish list: They are the GOP agenda.

And this vote isn’t the end of it. Yesterday afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner announced, “It’s important for us to win this issue,” before signaling that he’d put it to a vote in the House.

We need to stand up for the women and men whose access to care would be denied if the GOP has their way.

Make sure we’re ready for the next round. Chip in $5 or more to help Democrats fight back:

my.democrats.org/The-Next-Round

Thanks,

Patrick

Patrick Gaspard
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee

You can bet not one cent of my earnings will be going for this.

 

[zz912]

You honestly believe that pro-choice people actually want abortions and want people to die?

Yep, and it can be.proven. The democrats fight tooth and nail against women seeing an ultrasound before an abortion. They know if women see their child most won’t kill them. And yet if they v claim they want abortions rare, then they would encourage ultrasound. But they dont. Sooooo their words are lies. Liberals are liberal first, everything else, including Catholic, second.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Blunt Bill was bad legislation.

Women would’ve been prevented from health services if the employer felt it was immoral to pay for it.

Heck, years ago my wife was prescribed birth control pills to get her cycle in sync, so that she could get pregnant after she was straightened out, which she did. If not for the pill, she would’ve just continued to miscarry everytime she conceived.

OH and one last thing, my employer paid for the prescription and this was back in the late 70’s.

Jim

 

[Suudy]

The Blunt Bill was bad legislation.

Women would’ve been prevented from health services if the employer felt it was immoral to pay for it.

Why should they be forced to provide any type of coverage at all? We have Uncle Sam telling organizations what they must purchase. That doesn’t bother you?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Today I received this email. The official response of the Democratic party is that forced access to free contraception is a fund raising opportunity.

Yesterday, the Senate voted down an attempt by the GOP to let employers opt out of providing any medical service they personally objected to – but the bill was really drafted to let them opt out of covering contraception.

Every Senate Republican voted for it – except for one.

That one was Senator Olympia Snowe, who this week announced she’s retiring from the Senate due to the “polarization and partisanship that has overtaken Washington.”

This vote showed that things like curbing access to contraception aren’t just on the Tea Party wish list: They are the GOP agenda.

And this vote isn’t the end of it. Yesterday afternoon, House Speaker John Boehner announced, “It’s important for us to win this issue,” before signaling that he’d put it to a vote in the House.

We need to stand up for the women and men whose access to care would be denied if the GOP has their way.

Make sure we’re ready for the next round. Chip in $5 or more to help Democrats fight back:

my.democrats.org/The-Next-Round

Thanks,

Patrick

Patrick Gaspard
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee

You can bet not one cent of my earnings will be going for this.

A lot of Democrats have been exposed as liars; making up lies about how expensive and difficult to get hold of contraception is, saying Republicans want to ban contraception etc. Claims without any truth to them whatsoever.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Why should they be forced to provide any type of coverage at all? We have Uncle Sam telling organizations what they must purchase. That doesn’t bother you?

It only bothers people who love and appreciate freedom.

 

[seekerz]

Instead of blaming the democrats for everything under the sun, maybe they should work more carefully on the next one so that it’s not so broad, and more specific.

Yeah, let’s tag a broad bill on for vote, call it a ‘conscience protection’ amendment and not give it any limits and then complain when it gets tabled. You know, it’s not always someone else’s fault…sometimes people really do bring things on themelves.

An amendment worded so broadly would allow employers to not cover employees for almost anything just by citing ‘moral grounds’.

cnn.com/2012/03/01/politics/senate-health-care/index.html

Try again…

That would be too reasonable an approach, so instead why not just throw out people’s right to health care coverage altogether?

In my ideal world, health care coverage would not be dependent on employment status, far less on employers but considering that they are, we have to be reasonable. Any employer could, for reasons of ideology or whatever, decide what he would not cover for an employee and there are people who can’t see something wrong with that? My granola-crunchy boss could refuse to cover my delivery care because he believes - truly believes - that all labors should be natural home births conducted in the bathtub…and there’s no problem with that? Sometimes I think I’m living somewhere beyond the rainbow.

 

[Trader]

That would be too reasonable an approach, so instead why not just throw out people’s right to health care coverage altogether?

In my ideal world, health care coverage would not be dependent on employment status, far less on employers but considering that they are, we have to be reasonable. Any employer could, for reasons of ideology or whatever, decide what he would not cover for an employee and there are people who can’t see something wrong with that? My granola-crunchy boss could refuse to cover my delivery care because he believes - truly believes - that all labors should be natural home births conducted in the bathtub…and there’s no problem with that? Sometimes I think I’m living somewhere beyond the rainbow.

Just where did the “right to health care coverage” come from? It certainly is not in the US Constitution. Health insurance was not even a reality in the US until the 1920’s. What a shame that all those people were denied rights they did not even know about!
eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us

A big part of the health care debate is the conflation of health care and health insurance and some of it is deliberate by people with a politcal agenda. The two are not the same. Insurance is one of several ways people can choose to provide for their responsibilities.

The other fundamental objection I have in the health care debate is that I hear more than 100 claims of a right for every time I hear someone acknowledge a duty to act prudently. Where is talk of the duty everyone has to act prudently so they can maintain good health? Where is talk of the duty to budget prudently so the individual can pay for ordinary and even some unusual health care expenses?

If there is anyone who really cannot afford contraception and wants it, doesn’t the couple have an obligation to consider natual family planning at a cost of approximately ZERO, before demanding that someone else be forced to pay the cost of their choices?

 

[ProVobis]

That would be too reasonable an approach, so instead why not just throw out people’s right to health care coverage altogether?

In my ideal world, health care coverage would not be dependent on employment status, far less on employers but considering that they are, we have to be reasonable.

And to think employer coverage of health insurance came as a result of wage controls imposed by the government. Pensions too, and I expect unfortunately some government controls of those as well. What a mess.

 

[seekerz]

And to think employer coverage of health insurance came as a result of wage controls imposed by the government. Pensions too, and I expect unfortunately some government controls of those as well. What a mess.

I think it was a bit more complicated than that. This article is very long but it makes an interesting read - it’s an account of how we got to where we are today.

 

[seekerz]

Just where did the “right to health care coverage” come from? It certainly is not in the US Constitution. Health insurance was not even a reality in the US until the 1920’s. What a shame that all those people were denied rights they did not even know about!
eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us

A big part of the health care debate is the conflation of health care and health insurance and some of it is deliberate by people with a politcal agenda. The two are not the same. Insurance is one of several ways people can choose to provide for their responsibilities.

The other fundamental objection I have in the health care debate is that I hear more than 100 claims of a right for every time I hear someone acknowledge a duty to act prudently. Where is talk of the duty everyone has to act prudently so they can maintain good health? Where is talk of the duty to budget prudently so the individual can pay for ordinary and even some unusual health care expenses?

If there is anyone who really cannot afford contraception and wants it, doesn’t the couple have an obligation to consider natual family planning at a cost of approximately ZERO, before demanding that someone else be forced to pay the cost of their choices?

You raise some valid points, rights do come with the duty to act responsibly. Here is one of the Pope’s statements on the right to health care access: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm

Perhaps, strictly speaking, ‘coverage’ is not a right but access to health care must be extended to all and for the moment, this access is facilitated for most of us, by way of insurance coverage.

Read the article reference above: it made me laugh and cry at the same time.

 

[ProVobis]

I think it was a bit more complicated than that. This article is very long but it makes an interesting read - it’s an account of how we got to where we are today.

Good article. Thanks.