The Obama administration has again altered regulations governing the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, in a bid to legal challenges. The new regulations, issued on …
I don’t understand how the effected parties could object to this new " accomodagion, " it seems to take non-profits out of the loop entirely. It appears that any new objections would have to be based on the wider view of objection to the government’s involvement at all. Of course I do not think the government should be involved but I think the new accomodation gets non-profits off the hook.
Well, in all of this I have decided that all companies should provide health care coverage for their employees AND that they should not be deciding what to cover and not cover. Each person’s health care choices are theirs alone, and not for someone else to dictate.
Though I don’t agree with the use of birth control I would not deny potential employees coverage for it’s use. That is not up to me to decide, Catholic or not. I don’t think God gave me the right to tell others how to manage their own health care needs. I can only manage mine and let others make their own “free will” choices.
And if they are making choices for abortion, and I want to stop that, I need to provide the women out there in such a situation a place to live, free medical care, education, and a means through which they can give that child up for adoption if they wish. Anything else is lip service.
LOL, oh you think that do you? So can you please tell medicaid in my state to pay for baby boys’ circumcisions*. Is their refusal to pay for that deciding how parents will manage their own children’s healthcare? Are they interfering in medicaid’s recipients’ free will choices? Please do tell.
*Medicaid (and the medicaid plans managed by insurance companies) in my state will deny any and all circumcision claims unless a medically necessary reason is stated (there is an actual urology problem). You can still get it done, but you have to pay for it completely out of pocket.
Why stop there? Everything should be free for everyone or it shows a lack of charity, except that has not been the case since the fall of Adam:
To the man he said: "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat, “Cursed be the ground because of you! In toil shall you eat its yield all the days of your life.
Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you, as you eat of the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat, Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken; For you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return.”
The newest regulation may be better than all the previous ones, but we still have to answer the question my pastor asked three years ago, “What do we do when the government tells us we must do what God has told us we must not do?”
So, HHS thinks that the 8th try is the charm, huh? I doubt it. The best course of action would be to simply drop the HHS mandate, and let employers decide whether and what kind of health insurance to provide.
[quote=Cricket2]Well, in all of this I have decided that all companies should provide health care coverage for their employees AND that they should not be deciding what to cover and not cover. Each person’s health care choices are theirs alone, and not for someone else to dictate.
And yet the government wishes to dictate precisely the kind of health insurance we must obtain. That is someone else making the decision for us. IF a company wishes to provide health coverage, it might be best to simply provide a fixed sum, and let the employee buy whatever coverage they wish. But the HHS doesn’t require that. It requires companies to buy the insurance and it dictates what the specific coverage must be.
Reading the article, one gets the impression that the administrations number one priority of all things is that there MUST be contraception, and it must be free! Wow.
Last line of the article:*The latest HHS regulation takes effect immediately. However, it is classified as an “interim final rule,” which could be changed yet again in response to criticism and/or legal challenges.*It’s a penciled-in rule that could be erased on a judicial whim.
I’m still waiting for free coverage on my toothpaste and every other thing imaginable that I pay for regarding my “health.” Where is Nancy Pelosi to cry foul that the government prevents my access to basic health care!!!
A very good move by the administration.
I wanted a single-payer system but maybe this is the best the US can do right now.
Just as an aside, this provides an insight as to how Federal agencies actually work. Congress passes legislation, but federal agencies write the regs to enforce that legislation, and the regs reflect more the thinking of the executive than the legislative branch.
It’s easy. Write a regulation. Call it an interim final rule, publish it in the Federal Register with a comment period. You may receive 10,000 or more negative comments. At the end of the comment period the agency can essentially dismiss the negative comments with a statement that they believe these concerns are adequately addressed and make the rule final.
The rule then has the force of law unless overruled by Congress or by the Courts. And it was never debated in congress whatsoever. Most agency regs don’t end up with 33 or more lawsuits against them; obviously HHS pushed contraception a little too hard.
And subsequent Presidents could completely revamp what is mandatory coverage. Every 4-8 years anyone with insurance will be at the mercy of HHS to decide for them what should and shouldn’t be required coverage.
For all of you that have insurance…good luck with that.
You really think you’ll see single-payer in your lifetime? I don’t see it now. Clinton attacked the issue in 1993 and failed and Obama in 2009 and it failed. It’ll be 16 years before some other President tries and that’ll probably fail.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that the US will see a single-payer system.
It’s not about telling others anything. It’s objecting to providing something you find objectionable. Being forced to provide it.
So, you’re ok with making taxpayers pay for abortifacients then.
Well, one objection is that then the taxpayer (you and I) have to pay for it.
And it’s not just non-profits who are affected by this mandate. It’s any catholic employer who doesn’t want to participate in contraception and abortion.
The real question is why the government is hellbent on making abortion free.
And why its hellbent on forcing religious people to cave on their conscience.
(Contraception already is practically free, and is available for free already without any insurance for women who can’t afford the 9 bucks a month cost.)
I understand the position of Medicaid, in that genital cutting is NOT healthcare. The medically necessary reasons for it are an extreme rarity. So I see no similarities between your example and the topic of this thread.
I think the person may have been pointing out that the government is quite selective in what they deem elective.
Some of what they mandate is not only elective, it’s a violation of conscience to force others to pay for it.
Personally, I think people ought to choose their own coverage.
Some States have their medicaid pay for it and others don’t. So now what? The question remains: contraception, like circumcision, is not medically necessary unless you have a hormone problem where supplemental hormones (conveniently packaged as birth control) are prescribed, like circumcision is healthcare for some urology problems, otherwise neither are necessary for immediate healthcare needs.
However, the AAP has recently “endorsed” circumcision (benefits out way the risks) as preventative “healthcare” just like all this stuff the government wants covered for free, like contraception. pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585*
*I have no strong feelings about circumcision personally, and don’t want to debate circumcision. I am merely pointing out the other posters lack of addressing the whole issue, which isn’t an access issue, but a cost and who is paying for it issue. And the hypocrisy of the government who demands some things are “free” when other things that serve the same preventative healthcare goal are not “free.”