Have We Gone Crazy? Healthcare Coverage

[kschlag]

Seems to me that we are really starting to go backwards - all the scientifc research and health care progress of the last 150 years could be wiped out in wrangling over who controls our rights to decide the type of health care we need. 

You should decide what you want!  Not the church, not the government......

GOP Ups The Ante, Introduces Legislation To Allow Any Employer To Deny Any Preventive Health Service

By Igor Volsky on Feb 10, 2012 at 5:27 pm

Earlier today, in response to criticism from Catholic groups, the White House altered its regulation requiring employers and insurers to provide no-cost contraception coverage as part of their health care plans. Churches and religious nonprofits that primarily employ people of the same faith are still exempt from the requirement, but now religiously affiliated colleges, universities, and hospitals that wish to avoid providing birth control can do so. Their employees will still receive contraception coverage at no additional cost sharing directly from the insurer.

But Republicans and some conservative Catholic groups are not satisfied with the accommodation and hope to use their false claim of “religious persecution” to deny women access to preventive health services. Despite Obama’s decision to shield nonprofit religious institutions from offering birth control benefits, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) is pushing an amendment that would permit any employer or insurance plan to exclude any health service, no matter how essential, from coverage if they morally object to it:

(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES —

“(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS. — A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Services Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because —

“(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or

“(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.

Under the measure, an insurer or an employer would be able to claim a moral or religious objection to covering HIV/AIDS screenings, Type 2 Diabetes treatments, cancer tests or anything else they deem inappropriate or the result of an “unhealthy” or “immoral” lifestyle. Similarly, a health plan could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer.

Individuals too can opt out of coverage if it is contrary to their religious or moral beliefs, radically undermining “the basic principle of insurance, which involves pooling the risks for all possible medical needs of all enrollees.” As the National Women’s Law Center explains, Blunt’s language is vague enough that “insurers may be able to sell plans that do not cover services required by the new health care law to an entire market because one individual objects, so all consumers in a market lose their right to coverage of the full range of critical health services.” As a result, a man “purchasing an insurance plan offered to women and men could object to maternity coverage, so the plan would not have to cover it, even though such coverage is required as part of the essential health benefits.”

[SlapItHigh]

Well, the problem is that the government is already in control.  This upsets the church, and rightfully so.  The answer is removing the government from the equation.

[grlygrlz2]

Heath Care should a relationship between the individual and their Doctor.  Employers and the Federal Government are part of the problem...  Just look at the  history of bureaucratic BS/rising costs/regulations/ etc since the Government got into the HMO game....   

[kschlag]

Why can't this work? 

You choose your health care coverer - if you are against birth control, choose one that doesn't cover it, etc.  Keep the freedom of choice.  But you pay the fees.  That way you can have a clear conscience or whatever.

But, if you are unable to afford health care and the government assists you, you loose that choice.  There is an across the board plan and it better cover birth control because low income families often need this type of assistance!

I do believe that we need to help out those who can't afford health care coverage - so many times it's not their fault.  Especially children. 

[SlapItHigh]

For one thing, those with certain things on their conscience are funding the plans that go to those in need.  They don't get a choice whether their money goes there or not.  That puts someone being forced to pay for things that they are morally opposed to.  Who do you think is paying for the government plans for those in need?

Quoting kschlag:

Why can't this work? 

You choose your health care coverer - if you are against birth control, choose one that doesn't cover it, etc.  Keep the freedom of choice.  But you pay the fees.  That way you can have a clear conscience or whatever.

But, if you are unable to afford health care and the government assists you, you loose that choice.  There is an across the board plan and it better cover birth control because low income families often need this type of assistance!

I do believe that we need to help out those who can't afford health care coverage - so many times it's not their fault.  Especially children. 

[kschlag]

I wish we lived in a perfect world, but we don't.  For example, I have to let churches be tax-exempt whether I want to or not. 

I'm not a mathematician, but I would guess that each of us isn't putting so much money in the kitty that we'll burn in hell.  And I'm  sorry that, a mother of four already, who has no income,has to have more kids because she couldn't get an IUD - or are she and her husband just supposed to be abstinent for the rest of their lives? 

Besides, goes way beyond birth control.....

Under the measure, an insurer or an employer would be able to claim a moral or religious objection to covering HIV/AIDS screenings, Type 2 Diabetes treatments, cancer tests or anything else they deem inappropriate or the result of an “unhealthy” or “immoral” lifestyle. Similarly, a health plan could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer.

 SlapItHigh:

For one thing, those with certain things on their conscience are funding the plans that go to those in need.  They don't get a choice whether their money goes there or not.  That puts someone being forced to pay for things that they are morally opposed to.  Who do you think is paying for the government plans for those in need?

[JakeandEmmasMom]

Hmm...I can't think of any religion that objects to type 2 diabetes.  But what about that religion (is it Jehovah's Witnesses?  I don't really remember) that doesn't believe in blood transfusions or organ transplants.  Does that mean they can opt out of that coverage?  

Does this mean we can extend that to our taxes?  Can we refuse to pay a certain amount on our taxes if we have a religious objection to certain expenditures?  I'm thinking war and capital punishment here...

[grlygrlz2]

Are you forgetting that military funding is covered in the constitution?  Health Care is NOT.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Can we refuse to pay a certain amount on our taxes if we have a religious objection to certain expenditures?  I'm thinking war and capital punishment here...

[JakeandEmmasMom]

Quoting grlygrlz2:

Are you forgetting that military funding is covered in the constitution?  Health Care is NOT.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Can we refuse to pay a certain amount on our taxes if we have a religious objection to certain expenditures?  I'm thinking war and capital punishment here...

Is capital punishment?  Yes, military funding is covered...so is the protection of religious freedom.  So, which one should trump?
 

[Margroc24]

They could object to the person's lifestyle saying it contributed toType 2.

Lung cancer - smokers; accident coverage(broken bones) - extreme sports enthusiest; and so on

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Hmm...I can't think of any religion that objects to type 2 diabetes.  But what about that religion (is it Jehovah's Witnesses?  I don't really remember) that doesn't believe in blood transfusions or organ transplants.  Does that mean they can opt out of that coverage?  

Does this mean we can extend that to our taxes?  Can we refuse to pay a certain amount on our taxes if we have a religious objection to certain expenditures?  I'm thinking war and capital punishment here...

[grlygrlz2]

A punishment is “cruel and unusual” when it is grossly disproportionate to the crime.

Religious Freedom and Military Funding~ Why should any ONE trump the other?  

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:
Is capital punishment?  Yes, military funding is covered...so is the protection of religious freedom.  So, which one should trump?