E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWhat determines coverage in your health insurance plan?
You might think it ought to be based on proven evidence about what works and what does not. If you are a real optimist, you might think coverage is shaped by what patients need and what their doctors think will work. Wrong. In America, insurance coverage is driven by religion and politics.
When it comes to your health care, it's as if you're being told to find a theologian, not a doctor. That is the frightening lesson of the battle over contraceptive coverage.
President Barack Obama threw the Catholic Bishops and Cardinals a smoke-and-mirrors bone Friday on the issue of whether to require religious-affiliated institutions to cover birth control for their employees. Under his revamped plan, religious hospitals and universities employers who see providing birth control as a violation of their faith don't have to pay for it, but if their employees want it they can call a secret hotline to an insurance company who will give them the coverage by amortizing the cost into the price of other services.
The bottom line is, by granting an accommodation on this issue the President shows he can listen, count, remember. But it also should make you nervous that he and his opponents are perfectly willing to ignore what patients say they want and what works in deciding what you can get from a doctor, hospital, nursing home or clinic.
The Obama administration clearly heard Republicans gin up the issue of contraceptive coverage as one more example of the alleged war the administration is waging on religion and did not like the sound of it. Obama can count because -- rightly or not -- he does not want to risk losing votes over this issue. And his decision shows he can remember because the Catholic Church, commendably, helped him get health reform done and he knows he owes them for their help.
What the President, and all the politicians who piled into the kerfuffle over contraception, have shown is that when it comes to figuring out what we should pay for in health care, ignoring evidence and need is just fine.
This does not bode well for the future of health policy as our society ages and costs inevitably escalate. Today it is contraception that has been put out to pasture purely for non-medical reasons. Yesterday, it was not paying for doctors to talk to their patients about end of life care. Tomorrow, it will be covering treatments derived from the use of cells obtained from embryos -- or something equally morally controversial.
Too bad. Americans deserve health care that is in line with their needs, not what religious leaders or politicians diagnose.
What do you think of Obama's compromise? Tell us on Facebook
More from Art Caplan:
Leave a Comment:
So basically, there are no religious rights in this country, and we all need to kiss the a--- of Planned Parenthood, and to hell with the constitution. Give me a break, MSNBC. There is a reason why you are tanking in the ratings.
I never understood why conservatives only care for the religious freedom of employers and not the religious freedom of their employees. The brilliant Obama Administration compromise takes both into consideration - so the religious institution employer does nto have to directly pay for the employee's coverage, but the employee still gets the coverage.
The employee had the choice to work there or not. They would know its a religious organization and what that means.
And, the employee can get contraception anywhere. They are not put at any disadvantage. They actually have better access to contraception by contacting a clinic or other provider.
This was an excellent compromise. Women get their birth control. Churches don't have to pay.
IF churches yell that their employees shouldn't be allowed to get birth control anywhere, they will be ignored.
A single-payer system instead of an employer-base insurance system would of course have solved this problem--which is why the birth control problem isn't one is all the rest of the developed world.
Single payer will come here.
So, for example, in a hospital affiliated with Catholic Church, are all doctors and nurses Catholics? Does hospital only hires Catholics and require that they went to Mass, had Eucharistia, etc?
If not (and I think that's how it is), how can the employer make religion-based healthcare decisions for the employees?
Um - excuse me - but What happened to all the talk about women being able to go to Planned Parenthood for their Birth Control needs and whatever else they may need. Isn't there already enough money funding places like Planned Parenthood and Clinics that provided Women these services?
Donna,
Um - excuse me - but no.
@A2566217: Seriously??? No one is forcing anyone to use contraception or get an abortion. Religious freedom means being being able to practice YOUR religion- not being forced to practice someone else's religion. MY beliefs are that children are better off being born to well-prepared parents who can actually afford them. And to all of those who say that Catholic hospital and university employees should "just go work somewhere else", tell me how many job offers have YOU had this year? A Catholic hospital or university may be the only game in town. As long as Catholic institutions hire and serve non-Catholics, they must respect the religious freedoms of those employees, patients, or students. This is what the Founding Fathers wisely intended.
The requirement was already in play in 28 states (decided by those states), it was defended by the GWB administration in 2000. Many Catholic Hospitals, Universities already provide BC for their employers. Many women despite the teachings of the Church use birth control.
So other than the fact that Obama wants it for everyone, why is this now an issue? Are you Republicans that petty (and yes, that is a rhetorical question)?
At least now the "holier than thou" people will be quiet and we can all move on until another Republican idea is taken up by Obama and the Republicans cry foul again.
Response: This misleads by ignoring important facts, and some of it is simply false.All the state mandates, even those without religious exemptions, may be avoided by self-insuring prescription drug coverage, by dropping that particular coverage altogether, or by taking refuge in a federal law that pre-empts any state mandates (ERISA).None of these havens is available under the federal mandate.It is also false to claim that North Carolina has an identical exemption.It is broader:It does not require a religious organization to serve primarily people of its own faith, or to fulfill the federal rule’s narrow tax code criterion.Moreover, the North Carolina law, unlike the federal mandate, completely excludes abortifacient drugs like Ella and RU-486 as well as “emergency contraceptives” like Preven.
First, I think the religious right is usually wrong, but in this case I agree.
No religious institution should be forced to provide money for abortion or contraception if it is contrary to their religious ideals. If you don't like it, don't work there.
The other side is . . . employers and taxpayers should not be forced to provide insurance to cover pregancy. Having children is a choice. Everyone else should not have to pay for yours.
Arty is a COMMIE PINKO !
Joanne Prinzivalli - I haven't seen or heard of conservatives as a boxed group or as individuals showing any tendency to support religious employers over religious employees. What instances are you speaking about?
So... liberals are pro-choice but not THIS choice? If you work for a religious company, things will be-- well, religious. They dont make a big secret about it. The only difference in an obama 2nd term would be that he wouldnt feel the need to compromise to protect his reelection. What the heck; Romney 2012.
No thanks on the Romney bit.
Perhaps you're unaware that 98% of Catholic women use or have used contraceptives. Or that a large number of 'Catholic-based' institutions like hospitals and universities provide for contraceptives in their employee insurance plans. Or that polling shows most Catholics supported the original announcement. I'd suggest that even more will like this approach even better.
So the only thing the Catholic infratructure has been making a stink about is something they were already doing...religious principles or not. I wish they'd been as on top of their internal child abuse issues as they have been in creating this kerfuffle.
Things should not all be religious even if you work for a religious employer. The Catholic Church used to support witch burnings and slavery--they can't go against civil law and start that again.
The Supreme Court has often said that church employers must follow civil labor laws.
And it was THEIR choice, not a govt mandate. The problem occurs when the govt makes your choices for you.
Government mandates are not inherently bad. For instance, I like the ones around drunk driving, murder, theft, food and drug quality, environmental quality, national parks, etc.
Unfortunately for your argument, and as the president pointed out, this was never a mandate, but a discussion point for up to a year. As a result of the discussion, a decision for moving forward was reached.
My issue with this is more with the Catholic 'leadership', such as it is, in dealing with this. They offer a noisy argument against contraception insurance, which apparently 98% of their female flock don't pay any attention to, let alone a good number of their own institutions. Makes you wonder why they don't do the same tilting-at-windmills routine about divorce laws. The mind boggles at the internal ironies that exist in the Catholic church.
And I'm not saying the org doesn't do good things, for they certainly do...they just balance those acts out with some pretty whack-o BS.
I work for a catholic hospital, yes i chose to do that. I also chose to pay for health insurance. My employer tells the health insurance company not to cover birth control. That was not my choice. I wonder if they covered Viagra.
Response to comment re: Catholic use of contraceptives: This is irrelevant, and it is presented in a misleading way. If a survey found that 98% of people had lied, cheated on their taxes, or had sex outside of marriage, would the government claim it can force everyone to do so? But this claim also mangles the data to create a false impression.The more relevant statistic is that the drugs and devices subject to this mandate (sterilization, hormonal prescription contraceptives and IUDs) are used by 69% of those women who are “sexually active” and “do not want to become pregnant.”Surely that is a minority of the general public, yet every man and woman who needs health insurance will have to pay for this coverage.The drugs that the mandate’s supporters say will be most advanced by the new rule, because they have the highest co-pays and deductibles now, are powerful but risky injectable and implantable hormonal contraceptives, now used by perhaps 5% of women.The mandate is intended to change women’s reproductive behavior, not only reflect it.
Peanut, agree.
As Michael McConnell, a professor of law at Stanford, points out, you do not go to a kosher butcher and ask for a pork chop.
Response to What-if:
The 98% factor is used not to sample the population as a whole, but to illustrate the internal inconsistency in the Church itself, to wit: Whatever 'ideals' church leadership/shepherds are espousing, their flocks simply aren't following.
It'd be great if you cite a source for the new-fangled risky drug approach. As a matter of fact, I'd respect your post a lot more if you wrote it yourself. As it is, you just cut and paste your 'comments' directly from a Catholic Church 'position paper' I found for the Salt Lake Diocese.
Since you didn't cite that source, you're now a plagiarist too.
The Catholic Church is not under the control of the federal government in this regard. It does not require our allegiance, our membership or our financial support. It does a great deal of charitable work. Of all the issues for Obama to address, why this action against the church now?
The author of this article cannot restrain his anti-traditional and anti-religious bias long enough to do his homework. He failed to document how his claims were true, i.e, "Today it is contraception that has been put out to pasture purely for non-medical reasons."
Contraception has not been denied anyone due to the Catholic employers' desire to have it removed from its healthcare plans. Anyone can get it anywhere. It simply won't be included openly in Catholic healchcare plans. Big deal.
Jeff,
Great post, but really wrong from a factual standpoint. Many Catholic institutions such as hospitals and universities already offer health insurance policies that include...get ready for this...contraceptives. They do so even as I write this little missive to you.
The horse has been several years out of the barn before ye olde bishops started ranting about it.
And as for the "they can get it anywhere" comment. more and more pharmacists and work for drug stores (CVS, Walgreens, Duane Reade, ect) are coming out and refusing to fill these legal prescriptions based on THEIR religious beliefs.
If you live in a big city, you can get to another drugstore, pharmasist, but ifyou don't then you're stuck.
reya - Never heard of pharmacists and drug stores refusing to fill legal prescriptions based on their religious beliefs. Has that happened to you? Where? When?
Providing birth control as part of a health plan does not impact anyones religious rights. No one is forced to take birth control if it interferes with their religious beliefs. However, if you have a business and employees, you should not be allowed compromise their health and right to healthcare based on your religion. Women are the ones who are contastly being deprived of medical care based on others religious views and that needs to be stopped.
The clueless are asking "who's paying for this?" --The insurance companies will jump at it, since statistically a woman with contraceptives is a lot less expensive for an insurance company than one without. Think for a moment about it... DUHH! Obama comes through again, and shows his Solomonic smarts. Four more years! He deserves reelection if only for reintroducing the word "compromise" to the presidential vocabulary, after it was so sorely missed from 2000-2008, when it was replaced by "swagger."
Yes, Obama is a genius! Overreach on social issues and cram unwanted programs and policies on America, then when the majority rebels, ease off a bit and pretend you are compromising, on issues that the majority of Americans did not want!
I love the progressive argument for the Obamacare disaster: "40 million people will have healthcare who didn't have it before!" Just awesome!
Jeff, you remain seriously fact challenged, which provides many guffaws but sheds little light.
While I will grant you the majority of the people who said "I don't like this policy" (not a mandate, and there's a difference), the majority of EVERYBODY polled agreed with the original policy, and worse for your argument, now even more like it since a compromise was reached.
You should probably start prefacing your posts with "Once upon a time" in keeping with the tradition for writing fantasy-based tales.
Solomonic smarts?! Are you freaking kidding?! He is an epic failure but you obots keep marching to that Obama drum.
ANYBODY but Obama in 2012- shellacked!
Welcome once again to the Nanny State. Obama has proven once again that he wants to lead the United Socialist States of America. It's time to get a new president. Once that believes in AMERICAN values.
No one is being forced to do anything. It is about providing needed services for women. If they pay for the insurance, they should be allowed the choice.
Unless its the church who is providing the healthcare plan. If you want a different plan, then you are free to pay privately and forgo the benfits of a special discount provided by your employer.
Again, no one has been denied the opportunity to get free birth control. The church simply refuses to pay for it because it is against their institutional values. Females can simply go to a clinic or other medical provider, planned parenthood etc.
This is a Constitutional issue pure and simple. If you can't understand that the Catholic Church has the right to determine what is included in their health care, substitute "Muslim" for Catholic and suddenly things will make sense.
Jeff, a constitutional scholar you ain't.
Freedom to practice your religion of choice is in the constitution. Rules for businesses set up and run by religious instiutions are not covered in the constitution.
You can look it up.
There's nothing nanny state about this--it's about protecting the rights of women for equal access to ALL health care. You don't see anyone having a fit because the church willingly pays for old white guys to get viagra do you? No of course not--let's just keep taking it out on the women because after all, they are the root of all evil in this world--the bible says so!
Carol,
Can you please tell me which insurance policies are covering Viagra etc. without a copay.
Men I talk to say they have a $50 copay for Viagra.
Ironically, Repubs have jumped all over this issue--yet they certainly disagree with the Catholic church when it comes to such issues as the death penalty and caring for the poor...
Just typical culture war cherry-picking on the Repugs part. The last place to engage in a successful search for organizational internal consistency is the party of the pachyderm.
Actually, President Obama just pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.
Coverage of Bitrth Control without any copay was not in the original Affordable Care Act.
But our President added it in the interests of womens health saying that the employers would have to pay for it. Then when the Catholic Church complained he decided to do what he called a compromise and have the insurance companies pay for it. So in the end he has added to the ACA without any discussion or approval by Congress bypassing the Separation of Powers.
The question we should be asking is can the President or any branch of the Gov't mandate that a business must pay for their employees choices in the bedroom?
The question should be asked, why does Obama keep building fires? Why is unrest and division so often his tactic? Hope and change. Hope for what kind of change? An internal war among the People? To what end?
So in the name of religious freedom they should be able to do what they want? And that should trump all the law in the United States of America? So if my religion says I should smoke pot it should be allowed? Maybe I can get the government to force my employer to give me a three hour paid lunch break because my religion says I need it to pray? My religion says gay marriage should be legal so I'll go tell my neighbors they can get married now. I know, my religion says that in order to appease my god all the bishops and priests must dress up in french maid outfits and do the chicken dance on live tv. Hey, I'm just sayin it's my religion and you all better do what I say. To heck with United States law when it comes to my rights.
Freedom of religion is in the Constitution. Even the "laws" have to conform the Constitition. Muslims are already arguing about the extra time off for prayer. You can have your "religious" gay marriage. Its just not recognized by the govt just like the state-level gay marriages still arent recognized by the feds or other states-- so you dont get your govt benefits. Some native american religions ARE allowed to smoke funny herbs and even during prohibition, catholics WERE allowed sacramental wine. Legitimate religions are accomodated. Fruitcakes are treated as fruitcakes.
Freedom to practice your religion of choice is in the constitution. Rules for businesses set up and run by religious instiutions are not covered in the constitution.
Whatever the Catholics were doing with their wine, they still couldn't open a liquor store and sell them to you during prohibition, because that was covered by business law, not church principle or teachings.
Yes, freedom of religion. For themselves. Not to force on others. Smoking herbs, drinking sacramental wine,...those are all things they asked for themselves. They were not forcing anything on others. But in this case they want an exemption so that they can restrict health care for others. They want to force their beliefs on others. For women, and especially poor women, it's a slap in the face. These institutions should either fully insure everyone as required, or simply say they won't provide benefits to anyone. They can't pick and choose. It's discriminatory. What if they said "no annual exams for Mexicans" but they would allow it for Asians they hire? If the administrators don't want to use contraceptives, that's fine. But don't single out and hurt your employees.
From a sane perspective, it does not appear the Catholic church forced anything on anybody. You do not even have to be Catholic to work for them. They make no more demands on employees than any other major company as far as good behavior.
However, it does appear the Obamacare people want to force the Catholics to provide contraception. The only force here, a "mandate", comes form the government.
From an even saner perspective, the Obama administration hasn't 'mandated' anything on the Catholic church either.
For an exercise in relativity, consider the Repug approach to the Terry Schiavo case.
Best birth control is and always be abstinence.....
Forced healthcare is wrong.....
Ron Paul 2012.....
m-612920 postulates thusly:
Not likely, as it isn't widely practiced. Maybe an ideal approach for Neanderthals, but as this is the 21st century, there are more fungible alternatives.
So don't go see a doctor or practice a healthy life style. Nobody's forcing you to go to the doctor.
A likable character, with some interesting and some really terrible ideas, totally not prepared to be president though. Getting back to your abstinance idea though...see? it didn't work for him either. And now the world is stuck with Rand.
Note to m-612920:
Re your comment "Best birth control is and always be abstinence....." I guess that's why the high schools with "abstinence only" sex education have the highest rates of teen pregnancy. The best cure for ignorance is education. Please go get some.
I guess pedophilia is to be legal for "religious" organizations too?
Obama didn't change anything. He just covered his infringement of the First Amendment with an apron of fig leves. Insurance provided by religious organizations is still required to include birth control coverage included in the cost of the insurance..
Bob, you win the award for number one odd metaphor of the day. Pat yourself on the back.
Now kick yourself in the spot a couple of feet lower for being totally fact challenged: The president never infringed on any First amendment rights. Since catholic institutions were already known to be supplying contraceptive coverage, I guess they were infringing on their own first amendment rights too. Probably not though.
Too funny.
If some of the very many Catholic institutions were providing contraceptive coverage, they should not have been. It has always been the faith that abortifacts and contraceptives are morally wrong. They are now renewed in their understanding of their faith and should stop such coverage. Women can get contraceptives easily anywhere else without forcing the church to get it for them. If the insurance companies are handing it out for free, they can just approach them outside of their plan.
I think there are many victims of the catholic church who would argue that they have forfeited their right to preach of the purity of their religious ideals. Maybe when they start to practice what they preach people will start to take them seriously again when they try and use 'religion' as an excuse.
Gyortillicus..I just want to say..I LOVE the name!
Many thanks. I'm just here to help. :-)
We need a war on religion in this country! The concessions we make for religion are BS. Bunch of children grabbing onto fairly tales because they don't have the courage to face reality! Your going to die and that's it. Get over it and we'll all be much better off.
Yes and some believe that there is a continuance after this life in another existence. Some will be in a good place and other will not.
Contraceptives and helping women is a smokescreen, not the issue - attacking and undermining faith-based organizations in America is. The Obama administration keeps chipping away at the foundations in American society and wants 4 more years to continue the brainwashing.
I read one comment that stated that no one is being forced to do anything against their religious beliefs. That may be true but, what is not being addressed here is the Government ( Obama and co-Hort's) are forcing against the beliefs of the health organizations tat work under the beliefs of their religious beliefs. This Regimen of Obama is the most "Anti-American" of any president in the History of this country. Please help stop the Obama madness ans vote this fool of a president out of office as soon as you can .
A war on religion ? Off our meds are we ? What an absolute nutty statement ! Believe what you wish and allow others to do like wise !
Thomas speaks the truth. It is Obama's war on religion and America as we know it - individual rights and all. Religion is only one of his battlefields.
Obama in 2012!!
Obama is interchangable with Castro or Chavez.
The church of raping boys and hiding its priest pedophiles is upset about a health plan that gives a woman a CHOICE of whether to use contraception or not. Well, hmm. Perhaps the Hierarchy is afraid of losing its endless supply of little boys.
Wow. The catholic hypocrisy knows no bounds.
This has nothing to do with pedophiles or rape. No institution should pay for something that goes against its belief system, as spreading it's beliefs was the reason the institution was the reason was established in the first place. The catholic church decided contraception was against its beliefs long before it was possible to fund contraception with taxpayer dollars.
Obama would like to pit Americans against their religious institutions. Behind the smokescreen of contraception and a disingenuous protection of women is how he hides the assault on the church. He wants you to become angry at every institution that stands between the People and his plan to move America into a socialist state. Obama is Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, George Soros. There is an agenda in the works.
Article is a waste of space, this is the same plan that Bush administration approved. A publicly weak GOP platform always retreats to the Taliban method, bully the women and criminalize them. Nobody batted an eye when the cart was placed before the horse and viagra was immediately approved for coverage. That 2000+ year old thinking is alive and well in the GOP. Simply solved, stop 'giving' tax payer dollars to religious organizations which is constitutionally illegal. Let the folks that support their views support their church. God knows that the money changers NEVER left the temple. Religiously disguised predators, like the 700 Club, a front for GOP Politics, should be paying full taxes. I am fully against a 'tax-free' religious status, always have been because it violates our constitution. They are just as capable as the next business to file Tax Returns and pay their fair share. Far too many, like Westboro, using God as their political machine, paying zero taxes. It's pathetic to see Pat Robertson, suffering from alzheimers, spending 10 minutes on his fox financed GOP show, stumbling and repeating himself and lying to his alcolytes saying that God told him who was going to win the 2012 presidential race. He stated that 'god told me but I'm not going to tell you, all I'm going to tell you is that we must vote the devil out of the Whitehouse.' Excuse me, I'd call that SCOTUS annointed PAC action, pay taxes or shut the hell up. Insofar as pedophile priests, this rape goes on in ALL of the religions. Pick one and do the same investigation as has and is being done on the Catholics and you'll find the same thing. Raise your kid to believe in false prophets, follow religion where men immortalize in the image of themselves and you raise your kid to think these false prophets are above mortal men.
Reminds me of the story of Lott. That is the biggest bunch of bs in the bible. Men have been raping their daughters since the first daughter was born. But in the 'to serve men' bibles, it's the daughters that have seduced the old man and his wife pays the ultimate price. Like 99.9% of any religions 'bible' stories about women, she is always the reason for the crime the man commits, and/or God told him to do it. All religions raise men to take no responsibility for their own bodies let alone the sperm. All religions place the burden, the laws, the responsibility on women. Pathetic to say the least but even more pathetic are the women that buy into the religions that serve men. Take Mormons, Joseph Smith was a pedophile, the whole religion is based on how many women one man can own. Again, pathetic, archaic religions which continue to perpetuate inequality of women, of non-members, of race. at every level, have no place in modern society. The earth's population has grown to large to allow for this secular nonsense where women and children are the ultimate victims.
No, the end of democracy is the intended ultimate victim. Again, another division caused by an Obama action, pitting Americans against Americans. Now he drives hate against the church. He drives hate against an opposing party. The hate keeps building by all of us fighting each other over points of division he promotes. You don't have to agree. You don't have to disagree. Just think for yourself and be watchful.
Lets take all of our own opinions about religion whether for or against it out of all the conversations above and maybe you would be able to see through the smokescreen. Also, STOP watching the news and only reading the newspapers. Go to the USCCB.org website and make sure you know their position on the matter direct from the source not the highlights and compare what the governments position is as well.
The first paragraph and one half of the Declaration of Independence.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
SIMPLE CONCLUSION>>>>> VOTE>>>>>>MAKE SURE IT IS WITH GOOD CONSCIENCE, AS YOUR RIGHTS MIGHT BE THE ONES TAKEN NEXT. AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN A CREATOR, DON'T DISRESPECT PEOPLE WHO DO.
Thoughtful post, Swatmozzy.