The RCC may not have interfered with BC but they sure as hell suppressed Physical Science for fifteen hundred years.

Feb 16, 2012 -- 2:08PM, youngatheart wrote:

The US government does not have the power to mandate that private insurers pay for this or that. 

I think that is yet to be decided in the courts.

This particular mandate was evidently deemed by the Obama administration as distracting and not worth fighting about, but the mandates of health care reform in general will go to the SCOTUS, and we will know after that.

In my view health insurance can be classified as interstate commerce if anything can.

Feb 16, 2012 -- 2:08PM, youngatheart wrote:

The US government does not have the power to mandate that private insurers pay for this or that.  That is all this is about, nothing else.

 

No that is NOT what it is all about, it is about religious institutions , and people using their personal religion to prevent people from getting the care they need and want.

Feb 16, 2012 -- 9:36AM, Jasr wrote:

Feb 15, 2012 -- 7:07PM, Bodean wrote:

You missed it jasr ... government pay, employer pay, take your pick ... it all boils down to  the law is explicit that B.C. be "free of charge".  That means ... "someone" else is paying, but not the consumer.

My question is what is so fricken wrong with PAYING for your goods and services??

Well then...it sounds like what we are really arguing about is whether anybody but the individual should be paying for health care.

And I think you would take the position that health care should probably be an individual transaction...with no involvement by the government or the employer...with the only possible exception being military and veteran care, since these are provided under a contract signed between the individual and the government.

This is a position I do not agree with but I acknowledge that it is a forthright and consistent one.

Am I correct about your position?

My argument is that the "choice" to pay for healthcare insurance resides in the one doing the paying.

IF .. an employer wants to provide insurance to their employees as a perk, then I"m fine with that.  But to have the government force them to do so is wrong.  Same goes for the provision of B.C. pills.  IF the employer wants to pay part on a premium that includes B.C. coverage, I'm fine with that, but for the government to force them, is another story.

In an ideal world, employers would just raise an individual's pay by the amount they pay on the premium and let the individual shop for the coverage that they desire.  If the individual wants B.C. coverage, then they are free to choose.  Such an arrangement would also prevent employers, such as the Catholic Church, from refusing to offer a plan option that included B.C. pill coverage. But .. if your going to rely on your employer to buy your insurance for you, then the guy who pays .. has a say.

There really is nothing not to like about the what I consider the "Ideal World".  It is what was intended to be.  We wouldn't be having this discussion if it were that way.  A person could buy a plan that covers B.C. pills, Abortion, Face Lifts, or whatever she pleases. ... and she would pay the differential in price for such coverage.  I on the otherhand, could buy a catestrophic coverage plan that covers my healthcare cost in case of a catastrophy, like the need for surgery, cancer treatment, ER services.  I save a ton of money.

Here's the rub Jasr .. the ONLY WAY .... and I mean the ONLY WAY that that an insurance company can stay in the black covering B.C. pills is to force people who don't use them to pay an enhanced premium to cover them, including men.

Funny thing .. the discrepancy between the cost of "covered drugs" vs non covered drugs.  Your avg B.C. pill prescription cost around $50.  The avg Statin, that can save you life, but is covered on insurance cost about $150.

I personally oppose third party coverage of drugs.  It is proven that such drives the price up.

Feb 15, 2012 -- 11:03PM, teilhard wrote:

"Griswold v. Connecticut" made it CLEAR that "Government" may NOT forbid Contraception ...

"Roe v. Wade" made it CLEAR that a Woman's Reproductive Choices and Decisions are (MOSTLY) a PRIVATE Matter between that Woman and her Physician ...

Yes TH ... and both of these rulings have been perverted and corrupted for political means.

Liberals use these rulings to extend their influence.  Such is:

- a ruling prohibiting government from banning contraception gets stretched into forcing tax payers and employers to provide "Free" contraception to everyone.

- a ruling dealing with a woman's decision, becomes a tool to force doctors to perform procedures they oppose, and to force tax payers and insurance companies to pay for and cover abortion, against their will, and in accordance with a political agenda.

Liberals can't just stop with the "freedom" to do as one wishes.  Oh no ... they must create by force a society that caters to that individual choice, thereby violating the freedoms and liberties of other individuals.