House GOPers War On Birth Control

[McDowell's]

Please read the anaylsis in the OP's linked article -- in full. That answers your question. As I pointed out to Newby, some laws are more obscure than others.

no, that is a dishonest analysis
please point out exactly where this is in the proposed legislation

If you have not read the bill, how do you know the analysis is dishonest? What is your beef with the National Women's Law Center?

Go to the Op, Divey, and click on the linked article. There is a hotlink there to the text of the bill. Look for the phrase "conscience rights". This is the center's analysis, based on their reading of the bill and an interview with the Committee's counsel:

The Affordable Care Act included, as part of the compromise on abortion, a provision that made clear that nothing in the health care law would preempt state laws on abortion. H.R. 358 expands this provision, preventing the new health care law from preempting any state law - now or in the future - that has to do with "conscience rights." The Energy and Commerce Committee counsel admitted today that this provision goes WAY beyond abortion. In fact, it gives states carte blanche to undo, in the name of “conscience,” almost any federal requirement in the Affordable Care Act.

This loophole means that, under H.R. 358, a state could exempt any insurance plan from a requirement under the Affordable Care Act that insurance plans cover birth control or any other essential health benefits if complying is against its - the health insurance plan's -- "moral convictions."

If you continue to disagree, fine...but I'd like to hear a substantive reply, please.

How do you get that the state will have the power to unilaterally prohibit birth control from the part you bolded? Even according to your source, the insurance companies have to request the exemption for the state to even be able to provide it. What are flipping out about? Do you really think every single insurer in a state will request an exemption? Hell, if you were the only insurance provider to not request an exemption you'd probably get a flood of business and that alone would ensure insurance providers wouldn't opt out.

 

[GStarz]

It's pretty simple once you clear away all the absurd conversational garbage: until someone has a direct line to God, or can claim to be Him, to err on the side of caution is to assume that life begins upon conception. Some medical specialists have tried to play God by arrogantly categorically denoting - supposedly - when human life is manifest in a pregnancy, but then we don't know who they voted for last November, either - they aren't all saintly super-humans with a divine detachment to the garbage heap of humanity called liberalism.

Are you God? No? Then you have an obligation to err on the side of caution, or don't posture superior on ethics and morality. Assuming abortion is murder is the only intellectually honest extrapolation.

At the core, the debate isn't complicated.

 

[JFK_USA]

It's an attack on birth control? It's about nannyism isn't it? Any grown woman who decides to fuck doesn't need the taxpayer to buy her birth control pills.. for god's sake where does it all end?? You people are nutz.

The pill is hardly the only form of birth control going, Willow. This is not about "taxpayer provided" care -- it is about allowing states to PROHIBIT insurance companies in their area from covering birth control, or allowing such insurers to refuse to do so as a "a matter of conscience."

Some forms of birth control -- the IUD, Norplant, sterilization -- are very expensive and will be out of reach, financially, for many women who previously could use their insurance to pay for them.

How is that okay with you?

Vote Democrat, we'll pay for your IUD by taking money from people that used to be able to buy it until we took all their money to pay for shit for other people.

If you can't afford to have a baby, don't have sex... If you can't pay for BC don't have sex. If you're to fucking dumb to not have protected sex then why should others pay for your abortion?

Do liberals say no to ANY spending????? Oh, sure they do, as long as a Republican is doing it.

Neocons, everywhere wtf...

Do you not understand human nature?

People act on sexual urges because they are primal. Oh and a couple isn't going to not have sex because they don't have money. Because then it will cause relationship problems and then people will be even more miserable.

I find it funny you complain about a nanny state, yet you want to control which people should have sex. Freaking classic.

 

[Madeline]

 

[Madeline]

It's pretty simple once you clear away all the absurd conversational garbage: until someone has a direct line to God, or can claim to be Him, to err on the side of caution is to assume that life begins upon conception. Some medical specialists have tried to play God by arrogantly categorically denoting - supposedly - when human life is manifest in a pregnancy, but then we don't know who they voted for last November, either - they aren't all saintly super-humans with a divine detachment to the garbage heap of humanity called liberalism.

Are you God? No? Then you have an obligation to err on the side of caution, or don't posture superior on ethics and morality. Assuming abortion is murder is the only intellectually honest extrapolation.

At the core, the debate isn't complicated.

WTF are you to dictate to me or to any woman what she should do with her body?

 

[Madeline]

no, that is a dishonest analysis
please point out exactly where this is in the proposed legislation

If you have not read the bill, how do you know the analysis is dishonest? What is your beef with the National Women's Law Center?

Go to the Op, Divey, and click on the linked article. There is a hotlink there to the text of the bill. Look for the phrase "conscience rights". This is the center's analysis, based on their reading of the bill and an interview with the Committee's counsel:

The Affordable Care Act included, as part of the compromise on abortion, a provision that made clear that nothing in the health care law would preempt state laws on abortion. H.R. 358 expands this provision, preventing the new health care law from preempting any state law - now or in the future - that has to do with "conscience rights." The Energy and Commerce Committee counsel admitted today that this provision goes WAY beyond abortion. In fact, it gives states carte blanche to undo, in the name of “conscience,” almost any federal requirement in the Affordable Care Act.

This loophole means that, under H.R. 358, a state could exempt any insurance plan from a requirement under the Affordable Care Act that insurance plans cover birth control or any other essential health benefits if complying is against its - the health insurance plan's -- "moral convictions."

If you continue to disagree, fine...but I'd like to hear a substantive reply, please.

How do you get that the state will have the power to unilaterally prohibit birth control from the part you bolded? Even according to your source, the insurance companies have to request the exemption for the state to even be able to provide it. What are flipping out about? Do you really think every single insurer in a state will request an exemption? Hell, if you were the only insurance provider to not request an exemption you'd probably get a flood of business and that alone would ensure insurance providers wouldn't opt out.

Health insurance companies do not usually want a flood of business....how many ads do you see on tv for health insurance (other than Medicare plans) as opposed to auto insurance or life insurance? This is already a seller's market. And it does not take a genius to figure out that the fewer covered benefits they offer, the more profitable the plans will be.

 

[DiveCon]

If you have not read the bill, how do you know the analysis is dishonest? What is your beef with the National Women's Law Center?

Go to the Op, Divey, and click on the linked article. There is a hotlink there to the text of the bill. Look for the phrase "conscience rights". This is the center's analysis, based on their reading of the bill and an interview with the Committee's counsel:



If you continue to disagree, fine...but I'd like to hear a substantive reply, please.

How do you get that the state will have the power to unilaterally prohibit birth control from the part you bolded? Even according to your source, the insurance companies have to request the exemption for the state to even be able to provide it. What are flipping out about? Do you really think every single insurer in a state will request an exemption? Hell, if you were the only insurance provider to not request an exemption you'd probably get a flood of business and that alone would ensure insurance providers wouldn't opt out.

Health insurance companies do not usually want a flood of business....how many ads do you see on tv for health insurance (other than Medicare plans) as opposed to auto insurance or life insurance? This is already a seller's market. And it does not take a genius to figure out that the fewer covered benefits they offer, the more profitable the plans will be.

if people dont like the coverage, they wont buy the insurance
hell, most people get theirs as part of an employment package
thats why you dont see ads on TV About them

 

[Synthaholic]

Has everyone noticed that we never heard a peep about abortion, birth control, etc. when Republicans controlled the whole government?

They could have passed what they wanted. They didn't, because they could care less. They only use it when Democrats are in power, for political points with their base.

 

[Madeline]

How do you get that the state will have the power to unilaterally prohibit birth control from the part you bolded? Even according to your source, the insurance companies have to request the exemption for the state to even be able to provide it. What are flipping out about? Do you really think every single insurer in a state will request an exemption? Hell, if you were the only insurance provider to not request an exemption you'd probably get a flood of business and that alone would ensure insurance providers wouldn't opt out.

Health insurance companies do not usually want a flood of business....how many ads do you see on tv for health insurance (other than Medicare plans) as opposed to auto insurance or life insurance? This is already a seller's market. And it does not take a genius to figure out that the fewer covered benefits they offer, the more profitable the plans will be.

if people dont like the coverage, they wont buy the insurance
hell, most people get theirs as part of an employment package
thats why you dont see ads on TV About them

I am not still fretting about whether the WLC messed up the analysis of this bill, Divey. I dun feel like arm-wrestling but as far as I know, health insurance is a seller's market virtually everywhere in the US.

 

[DiveCon]

Health insurance companies do not usually want a flood of business....how many ads do you see on tv for health insurance (other than Medicare plans) as opposed to auto insurance or life insurance? This is already a seller's market. And it does not take a genius to figure out that the fewer covered benefits they offer, the more profitable the plans will be.

if people dont like the coverage, they wont buy the insurance
hell, most people get theirs as part of an employment package
thats why you dont see ads on TV About them

I am not still fretting about whether the WLC messed up the analysis of this bill, Divey. I dun feel like arm-wrestling but as far as I know, health insurance is a seller's market virtually everywhere in the US.

i disagree
since most people get theirs from employment, those that dont have a choice of what they want to pay for

 

[Madeline]

if people dont like the coverage, they wont buy the insurance
hell, most people get theirs as part of an employment package
thats why you dont see ads on TV About them

I am not still fretting about whether the WLC messed up the analysis of this bill, Divey. I dun feel like arm-wrestling but as far as I know, health insurance is a seller's market virtually everywhere in the US.

i disagree
since most people get theirs from employment, those that dont have a choice of what they want to pay for

Yes and no, Divey. Here in Ohio, basic health insurance (individual, not family) with no bells and whistles (drug coverage, dental coverage, etc.) runs about $1,000 a month and up. If you have not the sort of income that requires, there is no "choice".

 

[DiveCon]

I am not still fretting about whether the WLC messed up the analysis of this bill, Divey. I dun feel like arm-wrestling but as far as I know, health insurance is a seller's market virtually everywhere in the US.

i disagree
since most people get theirs from employment, those that dont have a choice of what they want to pay for

Yes and no, Divey. Here in Ohio, basic health insurance (individual, not family) with no bells and whistles (drug coverage, dental coverage, etc.) runs about $1,000 a month and up. If you have not the sort of income that requires, there is no "choice".

how much do you think the packages employees get cost, employee contribution and employer contribution?
about the same

 

[Madeline]

i disagree
since most people get theirs from employment, those that dont have a choice of what they want to pay for

Yes and no, Divey. Here in Ohio, basic health insurance (individual, not family) with no bells and whistles (drug coverage, dental coverage, etc.) runs about $1,000 a month and up. If you have not the sort of income that requires, there is no "choice".

how much do you think the packages employees get cost, employee contribution and employer contribution?
about the same

The reason policies are sold as a group is to offer them at a (somewhat) reduced cost. It is not really apples to apples, Divey.

 

[DiveCon]

Yes and no, Divey. Here in Ohio, basic health insurance (individual, not family) with no bells and whistles (drug coverage, dental coverage, etc.) runs about $1,000 a month and up. If you have not the sort of income that requires, there is no "choice".

how much do you think the packages employees get cost, employee contribution and employer contribution?
about the same

The reason policies are sold as a group is to offer them at a (somewhat) reduced cost. It is not really apples to apples, Divey.

did yours include eye glasses coverage?

 

[Madeline]

how much do you think the packages employees get cost, employee contribution and employer contribution?
about the same

The reason policies are sold as a group is to offer them at a (somewhat) reduced cost. It is not really apples to apples, Divey.

did yours include eye glasses coverage?

Yes, but mine was an especially rich policy, Divey. Remember, I was employed by the government.

It does not now.

 

[DiveCon]

The reason policies are sold as a group is to offer them at a (somewhat) reduced cost. It is not really apples to apples, Divey.

did yours include eye glasses coverage?

Yes, but mine was an especially rich policy, Divey. Remember, I was employed by the government.

It does not now.

yeah, mine didnt

 

[Madeline]

did yours include eye glasses coverage?

Yes, but mine was an especially rich policy, Divey. Remember, I was employed by the government.

It does not now.

yeah, mine didnt

That kind of coverage is rare...dunno if I have ever seen it, apart from government or union work.

 

[DiveCon]

Yes, but mine was an especially rich policy, Divey. Remember, I was employed by the government.

It does not now.

yeah, mine didnt

That kind of coverage is rare...dunno if I have ever seen it, apart from government or union work.

but the point is, the reason you dont see many ads on TV for health insurance is because most people get it from their jobs

 

[Madeline]

yeah, mine didnt

That kind of coverage is rare...dunno if I have ever seen it, apart from government or union work.

but the point is, the reason you dont see many ads on TV for health insurance is because most people get it from their jobs

Are you seriously gonna argue that health insurance is elsewise readily available, Divey?

 

[goldcatt]

If you have not read the bill, how do you know the analysis is dishonest? What is your beef with the National Women's Law Center?

Go to the Op, Divey, and click on the linked article. There is a hotlink there to the text of the bill. Look for the phrase "conscience rights". This is the center's analysis, based on their reading of the bill and an interview with the Committee's counsel:



If you continue to disagree, fine...but I'd like to hear a substantive reply, please.

do you notice they dont actually cite the bill where it says what they claim, right?

Well, hell's bells. I cannot find the phrase "conscience rights" anywhere in the bill, Divey.

Here's a link to the text of H.R. 358, if you want it:

Read The Bill: H.R. 358 - GovTrack.us

I must be tired; I can't follow the Center's reasoning myself. I sent them an email, asking them to clarify and I will PM goldcatt and ask her to have a look-see. As for now, it appears -- ugh, it will just kill me if I have to admit this -- you may be right.

Please wait a day before doing the happy dance; I usually find the Center to be pretty reliable.

This is going to take some digging. I found the language, but it's an amendment to language in a different piece of legislation as amended by a second piece of legislation and by itself has little context. Don'cha love those endless cross references?

It's in Sec. 2(c)(5) of H. R. 358, but it's referencing a change to section 1311(d)(2)(e) of the Affordable Care Act itself, as previously amended by more alphabet soup. So to really know what it does and does not do all 3 have to be pulled up and looked at side by side.

The slightly disturbing thing to me is that while it does strike abortion-specific language from the PPACA and insert as part of the proposed new language the phrase "conscience rights", there is no definition of "conscience rights" in the bill. It may be covered in the other provisions already enacted....have to check it out.

At least there's no case law.

Need...more....coffee.....back atcha when I'm functional.