tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post4272172092126079442..comments2024-03-28T21:42:44.372-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Mandate watch: We seem to live in a magical world!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-56152790790436831272012-02-21T18:28:33.736-05:002012-02-21T18:28:33.736-05:00David in Cal - YES -- universal health care! Let&#...David in Cal - YES -- universal health care! Let's do i! But your analogy is a little weak. It's more like this: Employer creates a fund that allows employees to join whatever organization they want. Government says: if you're going to create such a fund, you have to allow your employees to join even groups you find objectionable, so long as they are legal. You cannot create such a fund and then say, but you can't join X group. Make more sense?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-68193568090896359022012-02-20T21:37:23.785-05:002012-02-20T21:37:23.785-05:00I'm pro choice. However, from the Roman Catho...I'm pro choice. However, from the Roman Catholic POV, maybe the moral difference is something like the difference between (1)An employer paying wages that its employees are free to use for Ku Klux Klan dues, vs. (2)An employer directly enrolling its employees as KKK members.<br /><br />IMHO, if the federal government wants to provide free birth control to all Americans, it would be cleaner morally for them to provide it directly to the people, rather than involve employers and insurance companies. I think the direct approach would also be cheaper, as it would eliminate insurance company and employer overhead. Furthermore the direct approach would include unemployed people. They need free birth control coverage more than employed people do.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-38616753406318690772012-02-20T18:52:28.928-05:002012-02-20T18:52:28.928-05:00I know people who currently work for large Catholi...I know people who currently work for large Catholic universities and who currently have birth control coverage. There is a deductible, but that doesn't change the fact that the coverage is there. Why isn't anyone highlighting the extreme hypocrisy of screaming "freedom of religion" when they've been providing the coverage all along? Anyone in hell yet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-13534638635005049662012-02-20T09:24:40.839-05:002012-02-20T09:24:40.839-05:00What I don't udnerstand is why the Bishops see...What I don't udnerstand is why the Bishops see a moral difference between (1) paying money directly to their employees who then go out and spend a fraction of that money on birth control and (2) paying money to an insurance company on behalf of their employees and having the insurance company spend a fraction of that money on birth control.<br /><br />If there is a moral difference, can't we just mandate that Catholic Hospitals pay their employees an extra $600 a year in cash which will allow their employees to afford paying for birth control.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-11797601394566534012012-02-19T12:56:53.127-05:002012-02-19T12:56:53.127-05:00This article, Insurance industry could take hit fr...This article, <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/211563-insurers-could-take-hit-from-birth-control-mandate" rel="nofollow">Insurance industry could take hit from birth control mandate,</a> provides both support and opposition to <i>AnonymousFeb 17, 2012 04:20 PM</i>, who said that adding birth control & abortion coverage would reduce health insurance costs. The article says that most health insurance companies expect the requirement to increase their costs. OTOH the Administration says that adding this coverage to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System actually reduced insurer costs in Hawaii.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-72553494267987677462012-02-18T02:59:18.006-05:002012-02-18T02:59:18.006-05:00The majority of Roman Catholics didn't and don...The majority of Roman Catholics didn't and don't have a problem with Obama's original regulation. THE MAJORITY. Not a minority, not a plurality, but the majority don't have a problem with it. <br /><br />Only the Republicanophilic Catholic hierarchy, like Archbishop Timothy Dolan and his ilk, and a ragged band of ranting right-wingers like yourself are up in arms about this. Instead of addressing Christ's chief concerns in the New Testament Gospels, which focus on love, taking care of the poor and sick, etc., they are fixated on abortion, same-sex marriage, and the like. Catholic organizations do the work of Christ, but these "bishops" have spent far too much time shuffling pedophiles around like a three-card monte game. This newest bit of hysteria is par for the course.<br /><br />The reality is, they want to control women's bodies, their rights to personal autonomy, and them. Santorum has laid it all out there.<br /><br />We endlessly hear from the establishment media what the crank bishops want. Over and over. And that even louder-mouthed Bill Donohue, who represents no one but himself and the bishops.<br /><br />But what about Roman Catholic women? Why not hear from them? Oh, that's right, because people like you don't give a damned what they have to say. And believe me, an aspirin between the knees ain't cutting it!Ursula T.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-74177798709119521832012-02-18T00:12:22.743-05:002012-02-18T00:12:22.743-05:00@TobyTucker:
".... that it's not just th...@TobyTucker:<br /><br />".... that it's not just that you have pure hatred for Mitt Romney, it's not just that you're insanely jealous of those doing better than you,"<br /><br />You said exactly the same thing about your tax antagonist a few posts away. Apparently, anybody who doesn't accept right-wing talking points is a Romney hater, and pure envious evil. <br /><br />We could speculate why you take this peculiar tone on a site which wouldn't be of obvious interest to you, hand ow it is you have nothing better to do.<br /><br />Then again, if you and David in Cal keep it up, it's doubtful anyone will care to read or write comments here much longer. Perhaps that's the idea, in the same way negative campaigning discourages voting -- you so disgust people that they simply give up. It's been highly effective, particularly for Republicans.<br /><br />In any event, you're well on our way to it....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-56526681655751357862012-02-17T23:27:02.240-05:002012-02-17T23:27:02.240-05:00Perhaps one reason for the confused reporting is t...Perhaps one reason for the confused reporting is that official wording for Obama's accomodation doesn't yet exist. It's my understanding that at the moment the officially promulgated rule is the one Obama's accomodation will revise.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-18810520824193233212012-02-17T21:34:30.890-05:002012-02-17T21:34:30.890-05:00There's no "magic" as to how this co...There's no "magic" as to how this controversy died down in the media. Once again the MSM is doing it's best to cover for Obama. They find some notable liberal "Catholics" who declare this accommodation "solves" all the problems and circulates these remarks widely, while completely abandoning any attempts to explore the details of said accommodation and whether or not it actually does "solve" anything. (This article excepted.)<br /><br />Meanwhile, the objections of the Bishops are NOT publicized or only mentioned is passing, in the vein of "The problem is solved, what are they complaining about NOW?" As far as the MSM reporting of the Republican response is concerned, it can be characterized as "Obama solved the problem and now the GOP is just mad because he's so smart. Why are they always being so mean to him?", with only a cursory and/or dismissive explanation of their objections.<br /><br />So it's no wonder there's no controversy in the media, the media doesn't WANT any controversy. As you point out, this "solution" doesn't really "solve" anything, it's just a matter of kicking the can down the road a bit. Right now we seem to be in a holding pattern as HHS hasn't promulgated a Final Rule on this. Once that happens, this could very well blow up all over again.TobyTuckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05598549743757103132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-50784483257670462842012-02-17T21:19:34.432-05:002012-02-17T21:19:34.432-05:00This argument seems to assume that people will not...This argument seems to assume that people will not utilize birth control unless it's covered by their health insurance. I don't think that's the case. I think almost all of those who intend to use birth control will do so, even if they have to pay for it themselves.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-86895612514850461372012-02-17T20:38:08.261-05:002012-02-17T20:38:08.261-05:00Taking your argument to it's logical conclusio...Taking your argument to it's logical conclusion, the obvious solution to this dilemma is the mandatory sterilization of ALL woman at the age of 12. This would solve SO many problems! Women would be able to go through life without the constant stress of worrying where their next contraceptive pills are going to come from. Those dreadful pregnancies (so inconvenient!) would be a thing of the past. Not to mention, they would be able to experience all those wonderful orgasms without the fear of consequence. A new Golden Age for women, no doubt!<br /><br />And think of what a boon it would be to the insurance industry. No controversies about providing contraceptives. No more covering those terribly expensive pregnancies and their complications. They will be saving SO much money that insurance polices will cost next to nothing, as the addition cost savings of Obamacare fully kick in. A win-win for everybody involved! <br /><br />And just think, with the human race dying out, Mother Earth/Gaia will be able to return to it's pure natural state!!! What a boon to all the greenies/treehuggers out there. We should do this for that reason alone!<br /><br />Back to the gist of your comment. NOBODY (but you) is arguing about the COST of contraceptives. The issue is whether or not the government can mandate the providing of contraceptives by institutions that reject their use for religious reasons. Which you COMPLETELY FAIL to address. I would expect no less from you.<br /><br />As far as your remarks about the "right wing" "shooting and killing people", it's now clear that it's not just that you have pure hatred for Mitt Romney, it's not just that you're insanely jealous of those doing better than you, it's that you utterly despise those don't ascribe to your liberal / progressive / socialist ideals. It all boils down to "The OTHER TRIBE is PURE EVIL and I HATE THEM!", doesn't it?TobyTuckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05598549743757103132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-76409446543579780222012-02-17T19:21:55.370-05:002012-02-17T19:21:55.370-05:00That should have said "when they are NOT shoo...That should have said "when they are NOT shooting and killing people."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-53065372130838691252012-02-17T19:20:52.178-05:002012-02-17T19:20:52.178-05:00Look. It's really simple. If the insurer offer...Look. It's really simple. If the insurer offers contraception services then the overall cost of the insurance policy will be lower than if the covered women have unintended pregnancies. Pregnancies are damned expensive. The only way there is a difference for the self-insured is that they pay for the contraceptives up front and reap the reduced costs later. <br /><br />Say full cost of contraception is $600 per year. Say an uncomplicated childbirth is about $6000, and complicated ones go up rapidly. So a year's contraception for 10 women will save a lot of money. <br /><br />The issue is timing, of course. But that's the magic of insurance. You are buying into a pool of insured and the cost of the insured event can occur the next day. Does anyone really think that large companies do not factor this in when they decide to self-insure? If a company is large enough to self-insure it already has reserved to cover the current medical events. No state regulator would let them self-insure otherwise, and for damned sure no competent actuary would set up the plan without reserves. <br /><br />This is another media-created talking point designed to be an attack on the Obama administration. There is nothing real about it. It's pure combat propaganda, the kind of stuff the right wing does for fun when they are shooting and killing people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-45082525102443196942012-02-17T15:20:46.335-05:002012-02-17T15:20:46.335-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.John Powellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02637351629319676659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-76402817664247076242012-02-17T15:19:02.932-05:002012-02-17T15:19:02.932-05:00The actual details are unimportant compared to the...The actual details are unimportant compared to the novel: the "war on women." It's the left's turn to use a dumb-ass culture war issue to distract voters.John Powellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02637351629319676659noreply@blogger.com