Contraceptive Insurance: The Standpoint of a Political Conservative

As many of you know, it has become something of a current hot-topic, in the past couple weeks, to debate legislation backed by the Obama administration that would mandate all insurance companies provide contraception as a part of their plan. This has stirred up considerable unrest among the religious groups that disapprove of contraceptive pills (namely) and would, now, be required to provide those under their exclusive group insurance plans.

Because of this, many conservatives in the media have taken the First-Amendment angle, and attempted to play the Freedom of Religion card, here.

For those of you who are not aware, here are some news articles covering the debate:

topics.nytimes.com... tml

www.christianitytoday.com...

nosleepingdogs.wordpress.com...

It should be clear that it's a #-storm and a half, with many of the facts obscured by the typical conflicting statements within the proposed legislation, as well as various spins and biases applied to its interpretation.

Now, I'll take my stand as a conservative and address the issue at the very core that matters, but so few seem to be willing to touch.

Why does the government have the authority to mandate insurance companies provide care outside of the contract signed by the member?

By all means - insurance companies should be held to their contracts; just as individuals should. But I don't really see the logic in any part of this debate. Taking the religious end is simply sensationalist, in my opinion, and distracts from the core of the issue - which is government control over the market.

What is the difference between one insurance provider and the next if they all offer the same thing?

It seems we have, already, forgotten how well such government-unified systems have worked for us in the past. Just look at the Federal Reserve and what it has done to the banking system.

I think this is a classic issue of missing the forest for the trees.

Providing contraception makes sense in any and all cases - unless you place your beliefs before logic



Apparently this has bothered the Catholic Church quite a bit. But child molestation bothers me so I think we'll call it even

reply to post by Aim64C

Now, I'll take my stand as a conservative and address the issue at the very core that matters, but so few seem to be willing to touch.

Why does the government have the authority to mandate insurance companies provide care outside of the contract signed by the member?

The whole point was to make sure the insurance companies could raise rates universally.

Quite a few policies are provided by employers with "standardized" coverage policies already.

Therefore forcing all people into a universal program of some sort.

Rates are already going sky high, and the "choices" may be dwindling.

The government has "assumed" the authority by self-proclamation.

Much of the mandates have been/will be applied by "orders" from HHS, who were given the authorities by the legislation.

Many people actually making policy are ones that are attempting to reduce individualism.

reply to post by xuenchen

Quite a few policies are provided by employers with "standardized" coverage policies already.

True. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, either.

Therefore forcing all people into a universal program of some sort.

Not necessarily. Costs are still deducted from each individual's pay (in every case I've seen) so long as they choose to opt into the program.

Health Savings Accounts have become quite popular within my generation; High-deductible insurance plans paired with a tax-deferred savings account that can be freely drawn from after retirement.

Of course, I could also pay for none of it, choosing to invest it into other ventures.

Rates are already going sky high, and the "choices" may be dwindling.

That is to be expected when insurance covers routine expenses that could be taken care of by each individual. You've got operational overhead on their end that you must pay for, as well as the fee (this is where, to some degree, insurance companies work as a sort of union and negotiate reasonable fare for a given service - but there's little incentive for insurance companies to throw their weight around at this point).

Much of the mandates have been/will be applied by "orders" from HHS, who were given the authorities by the legislation.

I would challenge the ability of Congress to do this without an amendment to the Constitution granting the federal government direct regulatory authority over insurance providers and their contracts. This raises issue with the 10th amendment.

Beyond that - I challenge the wisdom of giving the federal government this authority; and make the assertion that, regardless, it needs to stop based on these grounds, as opposed to the hyperbolic argument of religious freedoms.

My standpoint is that until the government comes and forces you to use contraception, then it doesn't violate religious rights.

That being said, I understand where you're coming from with the government interference in the market place. It's like they go out of their way to interfere most where we don't need them and interfere least where we do.

reply to post by Aim64C


As a female I'm going to come out and say it is completely disrespectful and irresponsible to hold a conference over the topic of Contraceptives and not include A Single Female to protest or support the topic or bill, not to hear experience, reasoning, nothing! Didn't even give them a chance. I watched a women speak on the news today about literally asking one question to a representative of the contraceptive topic at a conference protesting the subject and was escorted out by her arms by the guards..for asking a question! I just needed to get that off my chest, that 13 year old barely in highschool is in the middle of controversy and media.. Poor thing. I could really give these men in suits a kick in the ass trying to pass laws they care not to consult women about makes me want to throw a fit. Okay that was my rant about that, whew. Good thread, good theories, good info! Thanks 8)!

reply to post by Aim64C

reply to post by Aim64C

I have to agree that the main point at issue is the government's interference in the market in the first place. I have a couple of random thoughts though.

Could it be that the broader issue is being addressed by the suits brought by the states to stop the individual mandates? I don't know what more can be done in that area.

Is it possible that the Bishops put more emphasis on their role as Church representatives, and not enough on their role as citizens? After all, they largely supported Obamacare.

Do you think this served as the "wake up call' to the churches, and we'll see them getting more involved?

reply to post by Katharos62191

Your point is equally solid presented by a female or a male. And I agree that women should be involved on hearings about contraceptives.

My understanding is that this particular hearing was about the religious aspect of, and response to, the health care regulations. I don't know if there were any female church leaders prepared to talk about health care issues, but I'm not too upset about the representation at this particular hearing.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Senate held a hearing on the importance of contraceptives and invited a massive majority of women.

reply to post by Hawking

Providing contraception makes sense in any and all cases - unless you place your beliefs before logic

The merits of contraception are a different issue, entirely.

Insurance companies collect dues from members which go to pay for all member expenses during that cycle. Companies use an internal system to determine the payable dues of each member based upon the coverage contracted, demographic statistics, and individual risk factors.

Should I be forced to pay for the coverage I will not utilize, but must carry due to government mandates? The idea that insurance companies "must absorb the costs" is a fallacious one and can be backed by accounting magic (you "pay for contraceptives first" - then raise dues because of the inability to pay for prostate exams, or something).

The question is not "to outlaw or not to outlaw contraceptives." The question is whether or not the federal government has the authority and responsibility to mandate coverage.

reply to post by charles1952

Could it be that the broader issue is being addressed by the suits brought by the states to stop the individual mandates? I don't know what more can be done in that area.

That is likely the angle the Federal government is using to justify their involvement... presuming I'm understanding what you are talking about, correctly.

You're saying that the states forming their individual healthcare codes and the resulting debate has driven debate at the Federal level in an attempt to settle the debate?

Is it possible that the Bishops put more emphasis on their role as Church representatives, and not enough on their role as citizens? After all, they largely supported Obamacare.

This is the reality of religious-institution politics. It's not difficult to find someone who wants to use the government as tool of ministry; but in doing so they create a very toxic and hazardous relationship.

Which is why I make the clear definition between a religious conservative and a political conservative. Religious conservatives will often jump at the opportunity to legislate ministry and/or morality as they see fit (anti-abortion activists). Political conservatives will attempt to keep the government out of anything that isn't absolutely essential for it to be involved in.

In the military, we refer to this as Mission Creep. It's the tendency to be over-reactive and indiscriminate in pursuing objectives; indicative of poor leadership and unit discipline. ... Pretty much describes America.

reply to post by Aim64C

Dear Aim64C,

I will sign up for a remedial writing course, I wasn't clear at all. Thank you for your patient answer though.

What I meant to say about the suits by the states was that since the question of the individual mandate is currently being brought before the Supreme Court this summer (By the way, what does the military do for luck, knock on a Huey?) There is no longer a reason to attack it through other avenues, everything is being done that can be done.

I don't think Washington is interested in settling the debate, or even admitting there is a debate. They just wanted to issue orders and exercise control.

With respect,
Charles1952

Men who don't have sex are complaining about an issue that concerns women who have sex.

Do I have that right?

Right. They want to take Gov funds but they want to use it however they like.
(I imagine hiding and moving child rapers from parish to parish around the country can get quite expensive)

If one looks at it like this:

You are being forced to pay for someone else's sexual escapades that what contraception mandate is.

Forget the fact if you knock boots its your responsibility not other people besides what the hell is planned parenthood for?

Not good enough the insurance racket works likes this people who aren't using it paying for those who do then of course there is the moraility issue but then again where are those liberals who use to scream to get government the hell out of the bedroom?

No wait nevermind.

Originally posted by neo96
If one looks at it like this:

You are being forced to pay for someone else's sexual escapades that what contraception mandate is.

Forget the fact if you knock boots its your responsibility not other people besides what the hell is planned parenthood for?

Not good enough the insurance racket works likes this people who aren't using it paying for those who do then of course there is the moraility issue but then again where are those liberals who use to scream to get government the hell out of the bedroom?

No wait nevermind.

I could say the same thing about many a medically insured aspect.

You require a hearing aid. Pay for it yourself. You're the one who listened to loud music. It's your repsonsiblity. Pay for it yourself. Why should your employer be responsible for paying for your blood pressure medication? You're the one who smoked for 30 years. Pay for it yourself.
- The issue is exacxtly the same. The church is even expempt. This is blown so out of proportion. Considering 95% of Catholic women use contraception, I'd say ppl are barking up the wrong tree.

You are being forced to pay for someone else's sexual escapades that what contraception mandate is

It's too not have to pay for the results- millions more criminals and welfare queens.