Atheist feminist rage activated:
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said the proposal would guarantee free coverage of birth control “while respecting religious concerns.”
Churches and religious organizations that object to providing birth control coverage on religious grounds would not have to pay for it.
Under the proposal, female employees could get free birth control coverage through a separate plan that would be provided by a health insurer. The institution objecting to the coverage would not pay for the contraceptives. The costs would instead be paid by the insurance company, with the possibility of recouping the costs through lower health care expenses resulting in part from fewer births.
Sigh.
Look, I know that in the grand scheme of things, women will still receive their free birth control even if their employers decide its their prerogative to force their religious beliefs on their employees. At least the Obama administration hasn’t completely fucked over women in this situation.
But it’s the principle of the matter. Religious organizations should not receive special privileges from the government since that explicitly violates the first amendment. These religious organizations love to cry that they’re the ones defended by the first amendment, but that’s false. If you’re religious and your health insurance covers birth control, no one is forcing you to use that birth control. If an employer doesn’t want their employees using birth control, tough shit. You don’t get to enforce your religious beliefs on others.
The only reason this is even a debate is because Catholics make up a substantial part of the US population so they’re able to cause a bigger stink. If a Jehovah’s Witness employer wanted to ban all of their employees from ever receiving blood transfusions, would Obama have caved? If a Muslim employer decides you can’t spend any of your paycheck on pork products, would that have been okay? Religious organizations should have to pay for birth control coverage just like every other organization instead of receiving special privileges. Instead, religious organizations threw a temper tantrum and Obama responded by buying them metaphorical ice cream.
80 comments
blitzgal says:
Feb 2, 2013
Disingenuous dood also mentioned paying for aspirin, as if the notion was so ridiculous he deserved a pat on the head for his sheer cleverness. Aspirin, when used to avoid heart disease, is preventive medicine and is discussed in the ACA. In fact, I’d be surprised if it wasn’t routinely covered already if prescribed by a doctor for the explicit purpose of preventing heart disease. My father’s Prilosec (an over the counter drug) was covered, for instance, when his physician prescribed it for his chronic reflux.
At any rate, like aspirin, birth control is preventive care. It prevents the medical condition known as pregnancy. It is a standard of care for the vast majority of women in the United States and is an entirely uncontroversial treatment, no matter how much a few religious zealots want to pretend that it is. They like to pretend this is something that only promiscuous 20 year olds are using. They are flat out wrong. Walk down the street in the United States, and 9 out of 10 women you pass are using some form of it. I don’t know any married woman who is not using it, unless she is menopausal.
RunningDogs says:
Feb 2, 2013
escuerd,
I’m not claiming that the pre-ACA system was cheaper than any other system, or that there was much to recommend it. After all, pre-ACA, half of all US medical spending was via government and employers were given giant tax advantages over the self-employed in paying for it. Healthcare tied to employment is one of the many awful things FDR unintentionally produced and the ACA (written by insurance companies) will worsen this.
I’m not trying to convince a bunch of leftists that free-market healthcare would be awesome because they’d have to agree that the key lesson of the twentieth century was that markets work better than governments and that’s obviously not going to happen regardless of the facts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWALXrWeDQA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I just want to know why leftists are immiserated and enraged even as their calls for nationalization are bearing fruit. Why do prolifers have to fully obey for feminist atheists not to go apoplectic? Are they just unsatisfiable thugs?
RunningDogs says:
Feb 3, 2013
blitzgal,
You should subscribe to Jacobin Magazine. I think you’d really enjoy it.
blitzgal says:
Feb 3, 2013
Also regarding expense, just this week the news came out that 43.9 percent of American families are “living on the edge of financial collapse with almost no savings to fall back on in the event of a job loss,” but sure, let’s callously proclaim that birth control should remain an out of pocket expense that everyone can bear. And they can just eat rice and beans, and they aren’t really poor because they have refrigerators, right, Sean Hannity?
http://assetsandopportunity.org/scorecard/assets/2013_Scorecard_National_Press_Release.pdf
blitzgal says:
Feb 3, 2013
Oh and what a shock, disingenous dood is a libertarian. Yes, the free market worked so fucking well in the twentieth century. That’s why we had this tiny thing called the Depression in the 1930’s where a measly 10 million people died of starvation because there was no social safety net, and why we recently suffered another financial crisis because of the outright fraud being committed in the banking industry. Gee, it would’ve been so great if Bush had been able to privatize social security when he wanted to, wouldn’t it? That would have turned out SO GREAT after the financial meltdown in 2009. We already raided the surpluses for years, why not gamble the rest of it away? And oh gee, the banks have really learned their lesson after that one, haven’t they? Oh wait, they haven’t, because they’re up to the same old shit already.
We don’t live in a free for all Deadwood style world, asshole, and frankly, you wouldn’t want to. You’d like to assume that you’d be Al Swearingen, but in reality, you’d be a hooplehead at the very least, or perhaps Mister Wu at the very best. We live in a society. You enjoy the benefits of the government every single day of your life with every breath you take, every drink of water, every bite of food, every time you turn on your lights, every time you take a shower, every time you take a shit, and every time you step into your car and drive to work.
You are a fucking moron beneath contempt, and I’m done with you.
blitzgal says:
Feb 3, 2013
Nothing worse than a 20 year old dudebro libertarian who thinks he knows everything but doesn’t even have a grasp of basic history. Here is my last comment on the issue. These are pictures of Pittsburgh in the 1940’s, before any clean air regulations were enacted. This air was NORMAL to these people. You think businesses will do “what’s right” by the consumer because it’s in their best interest? That is laughable, and provably wrong again and again. In this country, we have the egg producer who killed dozens of people and the peanut factory guy who killed more people. They knew their products were tainted but didn’t give a shit. In China, we have a formula company who killed hundreds of babies. Babies drink a lot of formula. That’s a lot of repeat business. Instead, this company knowingly put out a poisonous product that literally murdered their customer base. Business will not self-regulate. That is a myth and anyone who believes it is a fool.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/06/what-pittsburgh-looked-when-it-decided-it-had-pollution-problem/2185/
PatrickG says:
Feb 3, 2013
@ RunningDogs:
You’re posting in the comments section of someone who’s (1) atheist and (2) feminist. Please stop pretending to be shocked (shocked, you are!) that commenters here don’t particularly enjoy watching religious anti-woman dogma given preferential treatment by our government.
Not to mention that “rightists” are still looking for ways to derail the whole thing, and they’re still invoking right of association arguments to stop this. Because, you know, it’s not about their freedom-from, it’s about their freedom-to.
*Points* *Laughs* *Laughs more* *Laughs really, really hard*
Blitzgal already brought up the massive failures of Teh FREE MAAAAARKET in the 20th century. I’ll just continue pointing and laughing.
Nepenthe says:
Feb 3, 2013
Level of confidence that Target sells bc for 9 bucks: _
Level of confidence that RunningDogs is aware of what is involved in getting bc: _
Level of confidence that RunningDogs understands that bc, like other drugs, comes in a variety of forms, not all of which are usable for every woman: _
RunningDogs says:
Feb 3, 2013
blitzgal,
“Also regarding expense, just this week the news came out that 43.9 percent of American families are “living on the edge of financial collapse with almost no savings to fall back on in the event of a job loss,””
According to you, numbers are irrelevant. You’ve stated that all medical goods and services should be paid for by third-parties regardless of cost … even if said goods and services are as ubiquitous and cheap as aspirin. There’s no way for us to discuss whether b.c. should be paid for by third-parties to the sale because I can’t discern any actual reason for your beliefs. It’s if it’s called “medicine” it is unjust for A to pay C directly. A must hand to B who will hand to C. This means that I can’t see why youre experiencing atheist, feminist rage about pro-lifers getting a miniscule and outwardly meaningless concession to a very contentious bill. I have no frame of reference.
RunningDogs says:
Feb 3, 2013
PatrickG,
“You’re posting in the comments section of someone who’s (1) atheist and (2) feminist. Please stop pretending to be shocked (shocked, you are!) that commenters here don’t particularly enjoy watching religious anti-woman dogma given preferential treatment by our government.”
There are tens of millions of pro-lifers in this country (mostly women) and their leaders just asked for one single symbolic concession: don’t force us to pay for birth control. We don’t need to stop women from getting it; we just don’t want to be a third-party to its sale. The Obama administration agreed to the alteration with this Blue Shield authored bill and a tiny, legalistic change was made. This is purely symbolic. If atheist feminists are enraged by a purely symbolic change that otherwise gets them exactly what they want, then it’s clear to outsiders like me that they are beyond reason. They have a lens that allows NO argument or insight to enter their minds. It means that they view a purely symbolic change as more important than results. Or maybe they view pro-lifers (mostly female) as unpeople who should be forced to submit in all things to the demands of our giant, violent government. Either way, it doesn’t look like reason is possible. They demand submission.
“Not to mention that “rightists” are still looking for ways to derail the whole thing, and they’re still invoking right of association arguments to stop this. Because, you know, it’s not about their freedom-from, it’s about their freedom-to.”
Catholics basically supported the ACA. They just wanted some symbolic changes. I am a rightist and I want a system more simliar to Singapore’s (and I’m worried that the ACA is going to make my healthcare more expensive and cause more job losses) but my wishes are irrelevant. Third-party paid for medicine means a lot to people for indiscernible, nonlogical reasons and they have no problem forcing me into a system that is built on it.
“that the key lesson of the twentieth century was that markets work better than governments
“*Points* *Laughs* *Laughs more* *Laughs really, really hard*”
I mean something specific. In the twentieth century, extremely centralized economies were tried in much of Asia, Europe, and Africa. Each of these experiments lead to: mass starvation and penury, hills of skulls, little technological advancement. This remained the case until these countries collapsed under their own hideous poverty. It’s absolutely clear that markets are key to wealth creation, and every first-world country has a giant set of markets driving its growth. Some “socialist” nord countrirs have more developed markets than the US. So the number of government interventions needed to sustain functional markets is hard to nail down, but governments have a weak track record at running industry.
mildlymagnificent says:
Feb 3, 2013
Strangely enough, exactly the same thing happens in Australia and the UK and most European countries. The specifics vary on how much money it costs to “go private” – much more in the UK than in places like Australia. The UK provides absolutely no subsidy or support for private medicine, whereas in Australia all medical provision is private, except for public hospitals and specific clinics, and the government uses different forms of payments and tax concessions to control health costs both for itself and the patients using the services.
The Australian PBS, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, ensures that out of pocket costs for prescription medication is universally available at standard costs for everyone. Its main function is to act as a “group buyer” for the whole country so our costs, even when we use drugs which are not ‘standard’ subsidy items, are lower than they would otherwise be.
The US would do well to look carefully at how other industrialised countries manage to spend half, or less, than the US does for equal or better outcomes. And, by the way, that remark about deaths by gun violence distorting the life expectancy figures doesn’t hold water. Check the CIA Factbook or other reputable data to find the USA’s ranking on infant and maternal mortality rates for starters.
If the USA can’t get better infant mortality rates than Europe or Canada or Australia or even impoverished Cuba https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html ,
and has 3 times the maternal mortality rate of Australia ( and 7 times that of Greece) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html
then you guys need to take a long hard look at your health provision.
RunningDogs says:
Feb 3, 2013
mildlymagnificent,
“Strangely enough, exactly the same thing happens in Australia and the UK and most European countries.”
Here are some things that I think we agree about:
1)The pre-ACA US system sucked; there are many libertarians who would agree that the French model generally worked better.
2)The post-ACA US system still sucks and may make matters generally worse.
3)In countries with “universal” coverage, many citizens find the govt. controlled elements of the health industry to be totally inadequate, which is why they are willing to spend their own money.
I disagree with many of your statements about the state of world health care. Example: Human Rights Watch has claimed that Cuban health care workers are basically political prisoners; they are sent by the junta to other crappy countries without their family members to insure that they don’t make a fuss or try to escape with their valuable, government financed skillsets. So it’s hard to know what’s going on there. This matches the m.o. of Communist countries during the cold war, who famously claimed all kinds of great outcomes that never bore out. This idea was lampooned in 1984, of course.
I could argue with many of your claims, but it would be a pointless exercise because we value different things (e.g. I don’t care much about equality) and we have vastly different reading patterns and friendship circles. I’m basing this on how I viewed life when I was in the gray zone between social-democrat and socialist. The transition to my current libertarian state was costly and difficult. Unless I am way off about your politics, most arguments can’t go anywhere.
Which is why I don’t care to convince anyone here that free-market medicine is the way to go. I just want to figure out why it is that feminists spend so much time sounding and acting like the Phelps Family. I want someone here to clearly state why atheist, feminist rage is the proper response to a meaningless compromise.
rowenaravenclaw says:
Feb 4, 2013
What I don’t understand is why they’re worried about Catholics as a voting bloc making a stink over this. Lay Catholics, by and large, don’t agree with the church hierarchy when it comes to contraception. Most Catholic women, like most American women in general, use birth control, and likewise, most of them agree with the mandate. Yeah, it tends to be the loudest Catholics who tend to blindly believe everything the Vatican says even when it comes to stuff they don’t have to (like with contraception), but statistics suggest they’re in the minority, and I’d say probably anyone who comes from a sufficiently Catholic background (being Polish and Italian, I have a lot of them in my family) would be able to say so as well. That’s the main difference between Catholics and evangelicals, and why they tend to be a swing voting bloc as opposed to a lockstep Republican one.
Plus, the 2012 election in general should have been a clear message to politicians that voters IN GENERAL, and particularly those who decide election, are sick of the ever-escalating war on women and we want our birth control, dammit.
rowenaravenclaw says:
Feb 4, 2013
(Which isn’t to say I like Roman Catholicism at all, but I do think that political and statistical logic makes it clear that you can’t use the attitudes of the church hierarchy as a gauge for how Catholics vote.)
freemage says:
Feb 4, 2013
RunningDogs: Well, for starters, how about this:
During open enrollment, I select one of a handful of options for health insurance. While my employer is not permitted to know how I use that insurance (for instance, they don’t get to know if I’m using my coverage to pay for flu shots, antibiotics, surgery or alcoholism treatment), they do get to know which plan I’ve picked.
I suspect that this is precisely how the program in question will work–if an employee wants the ‘contraceptive adjunct plan’ or whatever it’s called, they’re going to have to opt-in during open enrollment.
Meaning that these women are going to be waving a red-flag to their disapproving corporate-church employers that yes, they’re evil sluts preventing the birth of potential babies. I can see why some would be a bit reluctant to make that explicitly clear, can you?
Also, please quit acting like the only two options are, “All medical coverage of any sort is provided by the state” and “Free-market boogie”. Most of us on the left would, in fact, prefer a model where an acceptable baseline was provided via single-payer, with medical care that goes beyond that baseline is what you would buy insurance for (most likely a variation on the high-deductible, HSA model currently available).
As an aside, the bit about ‘encouraging low IQ women to have fewer babies’ is a nice bit of projection, since your entire preferred system (in which everyone pays for their own health care) would leave massive numbers of folks dead.
RunningDogs says:
Feb 4, 2013
freemage,
I don’t know why you believe that enrollment to the adjunct will not be automatic, but OK. Maybe you have some evidence that this will be so. This whole issue is one of the million reasons that tying a medical payment plan to employment is idiotic. Thanks FDR and Obama!
“Also, please quit acting like the only two options are, “All medical coverage of any sort is provided by the state” and “Free-market boogie””
This is careless reading on your part. It’s blitzgal (and some other leftists) that believe that aspirin should be paid for by a third-party. It’s sambarge that believes that the debate over what the state pays for was settled 40 years ago in Canada. I know that some leftists have nuanced views about who should pay for what. You should talk to some of the less nuanced on your side.
I don’t want the state to force me to pay for poor people’s medical care at all. It’s not about my wishes, but about me trying to understand how a leftist justifies b.c. as a “public good.” I’ve read a few posts and dozens of comments by the more statist elements of the “Dark Enlightenment” talking about the benefits of minimizing low-IQ breeding. Once you accept their axioms, the logic is pretty obvious. As an ex-socialist, I remember why I believed that forced third-payer medicine was a good idea and I know that there’s an unbridgeable gap in our world views, so I won’t try to make some compelling case to you, but I assert that you are wrong in believing that.
Do you believe that the possibility of opt-in adjunct b.c. coverage is the big reason that you, the rest of the commentariat, and Jen are experiencing atheist, feminist rage?
One Brow says:
Feb 4, 2013
RunningDogs,
“says $15-$50 a month which is not nothing (up to $600/year) if you are living paycheck to paycheck (and that is a lot of us these days). And not counting doctor’s visit if you are uninsured.”
See what I mean? Chump change. So cheap that it’s nearly free. Eschew one small purchase a month and it’s paid for. Only the most helpless or impulsive women in America are unable to pay.
Which costs the insurance company more money:
1) Covering the contraceptives (let’s say the average is $1000/year) for 1000 women. Total $1,000,000/ year.
2) Given the very low rate of 20%/year who get pregnant when not offered contraceptives, and a mean cost per pregnancy of $10000, the total would be $2,000,000/year.
Now, as the insurance company, acting strictly in your own financial interest, do you offer those 1000 clients a free policy for birth control?
In fact, insurance companies would NEVER cover b.c.. Insurance companies exist to spread risk so that insurees can handle large and unexpected costs. B.c. is a small and expected cost for almost all women.
So, you don’t think health insurance companies will make rational decisions regarding their costs?
Now, I agree this change to the ACA is more symbolic than substantive. Most of the rest of what your posting is drivel, but that much seems to be accurate.
crowepps says:
Feb 4, 2013
Aside from saving the insurance company/people who pay premiums the cost of covering unwanted pregnancies, effective long-term birth control has other effects generally considered a “public good”.
Since accidental teen pregnancies and unplanned pregnancies have a higher rate of birth defects, preventing some of those pregnancies lowers the medical and educational costs of addressing birth defects, as well as the costs of providing monthly stipends to support those whose long-term disabilities prevent from working.
In addition, unplanned pregnancies have a higher rate of pregnancy complications that are expensive to treat, and a higher rate of maternal deaths. They also produce a disproportionate share of child neglect and abuse cases, with their concomitant social service and criminal justice costs, both at the front end in addressing the offenders, and at the far end, addressing the victims’ disproportionate likelihood of criminal or substance abuse involvement.
In short, by allowing couples to voluntarily plan pregnancies, birth control unleases a chain of useful good in every area of society, not just for women, but for their partners and their children as well.
crowepps says:
Feb 4, 2013
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/FactSheet-Consequences.pdf
RunningDogs says:
Feb 4, 2013
One Brow,
“Insurance” is used to pay for large and unexpected costs. B.c. is generally neither. So medical insurance companies have been turned into third-payer payment plans, a problem that began due to tax advantaging employer-paid health “insurance,” is getting more extreme thanks to the ACA, and is lauded by many leftists (e.g. blitzgal) who want third-payer payment of aspirin. It’s one of the reasons that healthcare costs will continue to rise quickly under the ACA. I regret that Obama, et al used this clunky, disingenuous, and lobbyist authored method to worsen the insurance issue, but it looks like we’re stuck with this bad trend thanks to his power grab.
I’ll note that you’re assuming that the best way to induce helpless women to use b.c. is to force third-parties to pay for their “free” b.c.. I don’t know why you think this is the best or most reasonable arrangement, but fine. Based on my interactions with other leftists, my guess is that it has something to do “equity” or “fairness” and little to do with back of the envelope calculations.
RunningDogs says:
Feb 4, 2013
crowepps,
The big problem with the term “public good” is that leftists don’t know the definition. Usually, they just call something a public good to justify forcing third-parties to buy something for someone else or to justify government just taking over an industry.
RunningDogs says:
Feb 4, 2013
One Brow,
Oops, forget the best part!
“Now, I agree this change to the ACA is more symbolic than substantive.”
So do you also agree that responding to this change (as have the commenters and author on this blog) with “atheist, feminist rage” is deranged? I think that it is and that it’s a continuation of how badly most feminists respond to political activity or life in general.
crowepps says:
Feb 4, 2013
In this case, however, the “public good” is preventing maternal and infant deaths, preventing birth defects, and preventing abuse/neglect of children, at a cost *savings* for third-parties and taxpayers. Considering that the ‘rightists’ refuse to support any of that because of their so-called ‘moral values’ makes the “atheist, feminist rage” perfectly understandable.
RunningDogs says:
Feb 4, 2013
crowepps,
It would be good to read this and then contemplate what your comments have to do with it and whether my last comment nails the mistake you’re making.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
Many rightists believe that the space for markets should be expanded for empirical instead of value based reasons … but then many rightists think that command economies are guaranteed to under form because of the natural experiments of the 20th century.
One Brow says:
Feb 5, 2013
RunningDogs
“Insurance” is used to pay for large and unexpected costs.
I was under the impression that, in particular for libertarians, the primary goal of an insurance company was to make a profit while providing insurance. Auto insurance companies are offering car gadgets the measure driving safety because it increases profits. Fire insurance companies offer discounts for the presence of fire extinguishers because it increases profits. Health insurance companies will offer birth control policies because they increase profits. I was unaware that you were the sort of libertarian who thought that a company conforming to your notion or a business model was more important than making a profit.
I’ll note that you’re assuming that the best way to induce helpless women…
Women don’t need to be induced to to take birth control; they only need an opportunity; health insurance companies save money by offering that opportunity. What’s your objection, precisely?
So do you also agree that responding to this change (as have the commenters and author on this blog) with “atheist, feminist rage” is deranged?
Three of the first four comments basically agreed with you that the change is not substantive; I didn’t count much further. So, it’s inaccurate to say “the commentators” as opposes to “some commentators”. In fact, the original post mentions this, as well. Further, that the original post beings with “*Sigh*” should be an excellent clue that there is very little rage being expressed; I classify the tone as disappointed. So, while I would hypothetically agree that responding to this change with rage would be overblown, in reality I can not agree with you because your premise is flatly untrue and counter-factual.
crowepps says:
Feb 5, 2013
Thank you for providing the link. My comments have nothing to do with it, and I see no error in what I stated, since I wasn’t talking about economic theories but instead social theories. Your insistence that you object to private and public entities being able to *save* money, as well as lives and suffering, continues to be puzzling.
Raging Bee says:
Feb 7, 2013
Most leftists believe that nationalizing an industry fixes the industry. This is uninformed thinking.
Most rightists cry about “nationalization” every time a liberal proposes anything, without even bothering to get even the most basic facts first, because that’s all they know how to do. This is infantile thinking.
Grow up, little puppy, and maybe we’ll take you seriously.
Raging Bee says:
Feb 7, 2013
“Insurance” is used to pay for large and unexpected costs.
You really are that fucking clueless, aren’t you? Out here in the real world, where people actually have to take care of themselves, insurance is also used for preventive care to AVOID and/or MINIMIZE large and unexpected costs. And the more we’re able to use insurance in this manner, the more EVERYONE wins — not just those helpless stupid poor people you care so little about (while demanding they do their best work for you at the least possible cost), but insurers, employers, and taxpayers in general. Do you really need me to explain something that fucking obvious?
Raging Bee says:
Feb 7, 2013
I just want to figure out why it is that feminists spend so much time sounding and acting like the Phelps Family.
That’s your fantasy, so that’s something only you can “figure out.” What are you bothering us for?
formerfetus says:
Feb 11, 2013
Well, Obama hasn’t caved far enough yet.
He struggles, so…battling his inner-Marxist and all.
“Religious organizations should have to pay for birth control coverage just like every other organization instead of receiving special privileges.”
There’s Jen’s inner-Marxist.