1.3M a day fine?

[Guest]

Judge Jackson disagrees with you.

On this one...

Yes, it is now legal for a government to force private entities to have no other recourse but to buy something or pay a fine. That doesn't necessarily make the burden of proof on the private entity if the private entity challenges the law if the private entity points at Constitutional rights as its basis.

For example, you can file your W-2 with instructions to your employer saying you don't owe the government any taxes therefore they should not withhold any taxes from your paycheck, then file your 1040 tax form with 0 taxable income. When the IRS comes knocking on your door and you go to court, the IRS will have to prove that you owe the government taxes. If they can't prove that you owe the government taxes, you go home.

This is a true story, by the way. The guy that fixed my A/C is a private business. He files his taxes yearly with 0 taxable income. The IRS put a lien on his house for non-payment of taxes, they go to court, the IRS could not figure out how much taxes he owes, so the judge threw the case out. The guy turned around and sued the IRS for putting a lien on his house and he won the case awarding him $20,000. A few years later, the IRS puts a lien on his house again - they go through the same process and he gets $20,000 again. Now, he welcomes the IRS putting a lien on his house because then he ends up making money. By the way, he doesn't hire a lawyer - he went to law school before he became an electrician. He's not licensed to practice or anything but he knows enough about the law to represent himself.

Interesting, huh?

[Guest]

Actually, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect employers to provide palliative care in their health care packages. In fact, my employer does provide palliative care.

Of course. It's legal, like I said. But, your employer CHOOSES to provide palliative care. He's not forced to do so against his religious beliefs. By the way, palliative care is not starving anybody to death who, otherwise, wouldn't have died.

[MarginOfError]

On this one...

Yes, it is now legal for a government to force private entities to have no other recourse but to buy something or pay a fine. That doesn't necessarily make the burden of proof on the private entity if the private entity challenges the law if the private entity points at Constitutional rights as its basis.

For example, you can file your W-2 with instructions to your employer saying you don't owe the government any taxes therefore they should not withhold any taxes from your paycheck, then file your 1040 tax form with 0 taxable income. When the IRS comes knocking on your door and you go to court, the IRS will have to prove that you owe the government taxes. If they can't prove that you owe the government taxes, you go home.

This is a true story, by the way. The guy that fixed my A/C is a private business. He files his taxes yearly with 0 taxable income. The IRS put a lien on his house for non-payment of taxes, they go to court, the IRS could not figure out how much taxes he owes, so the judge threw the case out. The guy turned around and sued the IRS for putting a lien on his house and he won the case awarding him $20,000. A few years later, the IRS puts a lien on his house again - they go through the same process and he gets $20,000 again. Now, he welcomes the IRS putting a lien on his house because then he ends up making money. By the way, he doesn't hire a lawyer - he went to law school before he became an electrician. He's not licensed to practice or anything but he knows enough about the law to represent himself.

Interesting, huh?

It does, however, place the burden of proof on the plaintiff, which is no different than the burden of proof being on Hobby Lobby.

[MarginOfError]

Of course. It's legal, like I said. But, your employer CHOOSES to provide palliative care. He's not forced to do so against his religious beliefs. By the way, palliative care is not starving anybody to death who, otherwise, wouldn't have died.

He wouldn't be forced to go against his religious beliefs to provide the care at all because it would require an independent decision on my part to use the care. It would be, as Judge Jackson described, "no more than a de minimus impact on the [employer's] religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees."

[selek]

Problem solved. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is a big proponent of expanded access to contraception precisely because of public health benefits. ACOG estimates unintended pregnancies cost $11.1 billion in taxpayer funds each year. The research has been done. Contraception is a public health concern.

Agreed- contraception is a public health concern. What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not infringing upon the Constitutional rights of employers and private citizens is the most effective and least intrusive means of remedying that ill.

In point of fact, contraception is already easily available. If your income is low enough, they'll even give it to you for free.

That being the case, it is far from proven that the good of providing "free" (a dogmatic lie if ever there was one) contraceptives is best served by violating the rights of private citizens.

In fact, at least one Senator has stated publically and directly, that the legislation was never intended to enforce a mandate on all employers, and that the legislation would never have been passed if it were known that the Department of Health and Human Services were going to arbitrarily and capriciously obviate religious exemptions.

And at least one court has already indicated that this is not infringing upon their rights.

And at least one court has agreed that it DOES represent an unreasonable infringing upon their rights.

Contrary to the shrill screaming from leftist and statists, the matter is NOT settled, no matter how fevered your foot-stomping and gnashing of teeth become.

Judge Jackson is NOT the Supreme Court. She is NOT the Congress. She is NOT the final word on the matter, no matter how emphatically you wish her to be.

The facts are in. Perhaps you should try reading them.

I understand that certain brands of fevered dogmatism (particularly of the Leftist/progressive/socialist kind) require you to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is either evil, stupid, or ignorant.

I am none of those three.

I am well informed on the matter- I simply happen to disagree with your fervently held wish for a one-size-fits-all, ****-the-Constitution, full-speed-ahead solution.

And I am not alone in that regard.

So before you go attacking other people over their dogma, I recommend you check your own at the door.

On the contrary, MoE- I am not the one arguing that people are selfish, morally reprehensible, or unpatriotic because they insist on "bitterly clinging to their guns and religion".

You are the first person in this thread to even attempt to rationalize why this violation of the First and Fourth Amendments may be necessary.

Every other critic has instead concentrated on painting Hobby Lobby as evil, misguided, or simply stupid.

Yes- the facts are in- and you've got a loooong way to go to make your case.

[Guest]

He wouldn't be forced to go against his religious beliefs to provide the care at all because it would require an independent decision on my part to use the care. It would be, as Judge Jackson described, "no more than a de minimus impact on the [employer's] religious beliefs than paying salaries and other benefits to employees."

Yes, it does. "de minimus" means it has little impact. Not that it has NO impact. There's no such thing as small sin versus big sin. Sin is sin if that's what your religious beliefs tell you.

This is really so easily solved. People who are employed who qualify for employee healthcare have JOBS. They get paychecks. They can buy their own birth control pill. So, it's no issue to remove birth control from the basic healthcare insurance coverage. The government can provide the basic healthcare with birth control pill for those who don't have jobs/money.

You know, this is really the problem with forcing private entities to buy something. That's why I thought Republicans were stupid for attacking RomneyCare. RomneyCare was the PERFECT alternative to ObamaCare. You get healthcare and there is no intrusion, at all, with private entities.

Guys, there are so many ways to provide healthcare for people. A million and one. Obamacare is the stupidest way to provide healthcare ever invented by Congress. RomneyCare is up there on the top 3. The pre-Obamacare scenario of forcing hospitals to pay for care is worse than RomneyCare.

Edited January 4, 2013 by anatess

[MarginOfError]

Agreed- contraception is a public health concern. What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not infringing upon the Constitutional rights of employers and private citizens is the most effective and least intrusive means of remedying that ill.

In point of fact, contraception is already easily available. If your income is low enough, they'll even give it to you for free.

That being the case, it is far from proven that the good of providing "free" (a dogmatic lie if ever there was one) contraceptives is best served by violating the rights of private citizens.

In fact, at least one Senator has stated publically and directly, that the legislation was never intended to enforce a mandate on all employers, and that the legislation would never have been passed if it were known that the Department of Health and Human Services were going to arbitrarily and capriciously obviate religious exemptions.

And at least one court has agreed that it DOES represent an unreasonable infringing upon their rights.

Contrary to the shrill screaming from leftist and statists, the matter is NOT settled, no matter how fevered your foot-stomping and gnashing of teeth become.

Judge Jackson is NOT the Supreme Court. She is NOT the Congress. She is NOT the final word on the matter, no matter how emphatically you wish her to be.

I understand that certain brands of fevered dogmatism (particularly of the Leftist/progressive/socialist kind) require you to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is either evil, stupid, or ignorant.

I am none of those three.

I am well informed on the matter- I simply happen to disagree with your fervently held wish for a one-size-fits-all, ****-the-Constitution, full-speed-ahead solution.

And I am not alone in that regard.

On the contrary, MoE- I am not the one arguing that people are selfish, morally reprehensible, or unpatriotic because they insist on "bitterly clinging to their guns and religion".

You are the first person in this thread to even attempt to rationalize why this violation of the First and Fourth Amendments may be necessary.

Every other critic has instead concentrated on painting Hobby Lobby as evil, misguided, or simply stupid.

Yes- the facts are in- and you've got a loooong way to go to make your case.

And again, we're back to this. You have to make your case...you're on the side of the plaintiff. How does this mandate coerce action one’s religion forbids, or forbid action one’s religion requires?

And, by the way, if I take your view point, as an employer who opposes vaccination on religious grounds, can I refuse to provide vaccination coverage for my employees? If I object to plastic surgery on religious grounds, can I refuse to offer coverage for reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy?

[MarginOfError]

Guys, there are so many ways to provide healthcare for people. A million and one. Obamacare is the stupidest way to provide healthcare ever invented by Congress. RomneyCare is up there on the top 3. The pre-Obamacare scenario of forcing hospitals to pay for care is worse than RomneyCare.

I'll actually agree that Obamacare isn't a good solution. In my mind, it isn't enough. But the alternative was the status-quo, which was also doomed to fail. The problem is that the parties in Congress aren't interested in viable solutions--they're interested in getting credit and avoiding blame.

So, crummy as Obamacare is, it's a step closer to single payer health care than we were before, and I consider that a step in the right direction.

[Guest]

And, by the way, if I take your view point, as an employer who opposes vaccination on religious grounds, can I refuse to provide vaccination coverage for my employees? If I object to plastic surgery on religious grounds, can I refuse to offer coverage for reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy?

I'm always interjecting between you and Selek... hope you don't mind...

My answer, of course, is Yes and Yes.

I'll go even further. If my religious convictions dictate that I cannot pay my employees, I should be able to post my want-ads to those who will work without pay. Of course, I may end up with no employees, but the government still should not force me to go against my religious beliefs just like I cannot force anybody to work in my no-pay company.

Edited January 4, 2013 by anatess

[Guest]

I'll actually agree that Obamacare isn't a good solution. In my mind, it isn't enough. But the alternative was the status-quo, which was also doomed to fail. The problem is that the parties in Congress aren't interested in viable solutions--they're interested in getting credit and avoiding blame.

So, crummy as Obamacare is, it's a step closer to single payer health care than we were before, and I consider that a step in the right direction.

A step in the right direction that goes through infringing on Constitutional rights is never a good step. Never.

A step in the right direction that goes through going against the law - like stealing somebody's LCD TV - is never a good step either. So, if Congress makes a bill to make it legal for somebody to steal somebody's LCD TV, I hope people will rise up and defend their Constitutional property rights and force Congress to come up with a better solution instead of defending the bad one. Even if there are only a few people who own LCD TVs.

Edited January 4, 2013 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

And again, we're back to this. You have to make your case...you're on the side of the plaintiff. How does this mandate coerce action one’s religion forbids, or forbid action one’s religion requires?

With all due respect, MOE, I think it's easy to brush this aside when you don't find the behavior particularly morally reprehensible. ("It's only contraception, after all . . .")

Would you be OK with being forced, as an employer, to subsidize a health care plan that provides for involuntary euthanasia for the elderly? Or (and I suggest this purely for trollery) to subsidize therapy to "cure" homosexuals and make them straight again?

And, by the way, if I take your view point, as an employer who opposes vaccination on religious grounds, can I refuse to provide vaccination coverage for my employees? If I object to plastic surgery on religious grounds, can I refuse to offer coverage for reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy?

Speaking normatively, as opposed to legally: Yes! And I'm free to tell my employer (and, if I can, bolster my position by forming a labor union and making this a collective demand), that if you want to keep the brilliantly reliable and productive employee that I have turned out to be, you'd better start giving me a better health insurance plan.

[MarginOfError]

I'm always interjecting between you and Selek... hope you don't mind...

My answer, of course, is Yes and Yes.

I'll go even further. If my religious convictions dictate that I cannot pay my employees, I should be able to post my want-ads to those who will work without pay. Of course, I may end up with no employees, but the government still should not force me to go against my religious beliefs just like I cannot force anybody to work in my no-pay company.

All the more reason to go away from employer based health care coverage.

[MarginOfError]

A step in the right direction that goes through infringing on Constitutional rights is never a good step. Never.

A step in the right direction that goes through going against the law - like stealing somebody's LCD TV - is never a good step either. So, if Congress makes a bill to make it legal for somebody to steal somebody's LCD TV, I hope people will rise up and defend their Constitutional property rights and force Congress to come up with a better solution instead of defending the bad one. Even if there are only a few people who own LCD TVs.

I'm not sure this is a helpful comparison, as there was no massive society problem looming over the ownership of LCD TVs.

[MarginOfError]

With all due respect, MOE, I think it's easy to brush this aside when you don't find the behavior particularly morally reprehensible. ("It's only contraception, after all . . .")

Would you be OK with being forced, as an employer, to subsidize a health care plan that provides for involuntary euthanasia for the elderly? Or (and I suggest this purely for trollery) to subsidize therapy to "cure" homosexuals and make them straight again?

You'll be shocked to hear me say that, yes, I do believe those should be covered--but on the condition that said treatments are demonstrated to be medically ethical, cost efficient, and have a clear and quantifiable benefit to society.

Speaking normatively, as opposed to legally: Yes! And I'm free to tell my employer (and, if I can, bolster my position by forming a labor union and making this a collective demand), that if you want to keep the brilliantly reliable and productive employee that I have turned out to be, you'd better start giving me a better health insurance plan.

Strange. I read this and all I see is, "I think it's okay for an employer to violate their own personal morals in order to stay in business and make money, but not for public health concerns." That's some moral compass!

[Guest]

I'm not sure this is a helpful comparison, as there was no massive society problem looming over the ownership of LCD TVs.

We can make up one. The example still stands.

[Guest]

All the more reason to go away from employer based health care coverage.

EXACTLY! AMEN. 5 million times Amen.

When Romney ran for the Republican Primaries in 2008, his healthcare solution made me go - this. This is the guy I want. I don't know if that webpage is still there but his first bullet point was to separate healthcare from employers. This makes it so that your healthcare is not dependent on who you work for or even if you have a job or not. And so, ObamaCare just went completely against my principles and I was cheering on getting it repealed in the earliest time possible. And I am for healthcare safety net.

Now, I know you want single payer healthcare. That is bad too. Because it is not sustainable unless you put major healthcare restrictions - like, making it illegal to eat carcinogens or making it illegal to carry a child with birth defect to term... This does not work under the ideals of freedom and democracy that is the foundation of American prosperity. America works because people are free to eat BigMacs 3 times a day every day of the week. The minute to start putting restrictions on what America can and can't eat, you get in a regulations nightmare like the case with the lightbulbs and solar energy where the economy is dictated by which company has the biggest contribution to a government's campaign. The government can then dictate, McDonald's is illegal because some tofu-burger company wants to make money...

RomneyCare is really, a much better solution.

Edited January 4, 2013 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

You'll be shocked to hear me say that, yes, I do believe those should be covered--but on the condition that said treatments are demonstrated to be medically ethical, cost efficient, and have a clear and quantifiable benefit to society.

But doesn't this boil down to "as an employer, I have no problem covering medical treatments that I, personally, believe to be ethical, economical, and beneficial" - which is pretty much Hobby Lobby's position as well?

Strange. I read this and all I see is, "I think it's okay for an employer to violate their own personal morals in order to stay in business and make money, but not for public health concerns." That's some moral compass!

If an employer is going to violate his own moral code, I'd rather it be because circumstances (even pecuniary ones) have persuaded him to abandon the code than because he holds to the code but feels he must breach it and thereby become a hypocrite in order to earn a living - or, heaven forbid, to stay out of prison. I thought progressives prided themselves on being big on persuasiveness rather than compulsion, and it was only those backward social conservatives who wanted to force everyone to be "good"?

Moreover, you deny both the business owner and the employee the opportunity to creatively arrange ways around this conundrum - a flat annual bonus, for example; or higher employer contributions to "necessary" health care in exchange for zero employer contribution to elective procedures.

For all their professed love of creativity and open discussion, their insistence on management and proletariat "sitting down together" at the bargaining table, the glorification of compromise, and purported belief that the utter rightness of their convictions will triumph in the end; some progressives seem to be in an awful hurry to shut down the deliberative process.

[MarginOfError]

But doesn't this boil down to "as an employer, I have no problem covering medical treatments that I, personally, believe to be ethical, economical, and beneficial" - which is pretty much Hobby Lobby's position as well?

No. Medically ethical, economical, and beneficial is something for the medical and scientific communities to work out through peer reviewed research.

If an employer is going to violate his own moral code, I'd rather it be because circumstances (even pecuniary ones) have persuaded him to abandon the code than because he holds to the code but feels he must breach it and thereby become a hypocrite in order to earn a living - or, heaven forbid, to stay out of prison. I thought progressives prided themselves on being big on persuasiveness rather than compulsion, and it was only those backward social conservatives who wanted to force everyone to be "good"?

You mean those backward social conservatives who don't want to give their employees the option of contraception in their health coverage, thereby forcing their employees to be "good?" That isn't a very good argument because it is easily spun to suit the needs of either party.

Moreover, you deny both the business owner and the employee the opportunity to creatively arrange ways around this conundrum - a flat annual bonus, for example; or higher employer contributions to "necessary" health care in exchange for zero employer contribution to elective procedures.

For all their professed love of creativity and open discussion, their insistence on management and proletariat "sitting down together" at the bargaining table, the glorification of compromise, and purported belief that the utter rightness of their convictions will triumph in the end; some progressives seem to be in an awful hurry to shut down the deliberative process.

I'll simply remind you that discussion, creativity, and compromise were originally sought after, including the addition of initially conservative ideas (see, individual mandate). But these were categorically rejected because they came from the other side of the aisle. So I go back to my statement of it isn't getting fixed because the people with the power to fix it aren't interested in fixing it--they're interested in getting credit (and avoiding blame). As long as that's the case, then yes, you're going to have crappy solutions and the only way anything will change is by political force.

[Just_A_Guy]

No. Medically ethical, economical, and beneficial is something for the medical and scientific communities to work out through peer reviewed research.

Of course, you have the luxury of being a member of those communities to some degree. I don't completely agree with the notion of letting those communities do my thinking for me on the issues of economics and benefits, but I can at least sympathize with it. I have no such sympathies for discussions of ethics. That was originally the province of religion - if you now want to exclude religious institutions from the discussion, all well and good; but the discussion should then devolve upon society as a whole and not be co-opted by a new priesthood of philosophical dogmatists.

You mean those backward social conservatives who don't want to give their employees the option of contraception in their health coverage, thereby forcing their employees to be "good?" That isn't a very good argument because it is easily spun to suit the needs of either party.

Wait - Hobby Lobby was sending people to rummage through employees' medicine cabinets to make sure there was no contraception in the house? Or perhaps you mean that employees had to account for how they spend each and every cent of their salaries and prove that they aren't buying nasty things at their local pharmacies?

Refusing to pay for someone else to buy something for themselves, is not "force" - any way you slice it. At the end of the day, liberals enforce their will through the threat of force and at the point of the gun. We've had this discussion before, and perhaps rehashing it will do no good at present; but it really does come back to the propriety of using the trump card of government compulsion to enforce your own moral viewpoints.

I'll simply remind you that discussion, creativity, and compromise were originally sought after, including the addition of initially conservative ideas (see, individual mandate). But these were categorically rejected because they came from the other side of the aisle.

I won't pretend to speak for conservatives as a whole; but for my part - No, they were rejected because they were being offered as a mechanism to create a regimen that would, in the long run, centralize the process and thereby end discussion, stifle creativity, and pre-empt the field of compromise by government fiat. Health care reform was never about offering choice. It was about offering tangible financial benefits. There's a difference.

So I go back to my statement of it isn't getting fixed because the people with the power to fix it aren't interested in fixing it--they're interested in getting credit (and avoiding blame). As long as that's the case, then yes, you're going to have crappy solutions. . .

Amen.

. . . and the only way anything will change is by political force.

Sure. What remains to be seen is whether the change will be an improvement on the status quo. Change for mere change's sake rarely ends well.

Exhibit A:

[Maureen]

This thread is about Hobby Lobby’s claim to exemption from the HHS mandate. It is not about the Catholic Church’s objection to the mandate. My opinions on this thread are regarding how I see Hobby Lobby’s position and any other business’s claim or church’s claims relating to the HHS mandate are a different kettle of fish, where I am concerned.

The Christian-owned Hobby Lobby has sued for an exemption from the section of Obamacare which requires employers to provide a healthcare plan including emergency contraception such as the morning-after pill. It is their belief that these pills are equal to an abortion, which goes against their deeply held religious convictions, although they will still provide coverage for standard birth control pills.

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/ameliahamilton/hobby-lobby-stuck-between-rights-and-government

From all my reading I have found an article that claims the FDA’s description of these morning-after pills is incorrect.

…an examination by The New York Times has found that the federally approved labels and medical Web sites do not reflect what the science shows. Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.

It turns out that the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion, a divisive issue in this election year, is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work. Because they block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents’ definition of abortion-inducing drugs. In contrast, RU-486, a medication prescribed for terminating pregnancies, destroys implanted embryos.

The notion that morning-after pills prevent eggs from implanting stems from the Food and Drug Administration’s decision during the drug-approval process to mention that possibility on the label — despite lack of scientific proof, scientists say, and objections by the manufacturer of Plan B, the pill on the market the longest. Leading scientists say studies since then provide strong evidence that Plan B does not prevent implantation, and no proof that a newer type of pill, Ella, does….

…The F.D.A. declined to discuss decisions about the effect on implantation or to say whether it would consider revising labels. But Erica Jefferson, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, acknowledged: “The emerging data on Plan B suggest that it does not inhibit implantation. Less is known about Ella. However, some data suggest it also does not inhibit implantation.”

Scientists say the pills work up to five days after sex, primarily stalling an egg’s release until sperm can no longer fertilize it. Although many people think sperm and egg unite immediately after sex, sperm need time to position themselves….

…Experts say implantation was likely placed on the label partly because daily birth control pills, some of which contain Plan B’s active ingredient, appear to alter the endometrium, the lining of the uterus into which fertilized eggs implant. Altering the endometrium has not been proven to interfere with implantation. But in any case, scientists say that unlike the accumulating doses of daily birth control pills, the one-shot dose in morning-after pills does not have time to affect the uterine lining. “It takes time for an endometrium to change, for its cells to divide,” said Susan Wood, a biochemist who, shortly after Plan B’s approval became the F.D.A.’s top women’s health official and later resigned, frustrated with the delay in making the pill available without prescription.

Implantation also likely wound up on the label because of what Dr. Gemzell-Danielsson called wishful thinking by some scientists, who thought that if it could also block implantation, it would be even better at preventing pregnancy.

By 2002, studies produced evidence that Plan B did not interrupt implantation….

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If Hobby Lobby’s disapproval of coverage for the morning-after pills is due to the FDA’s description of the pill as one that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, which they believe makes the pill an abortifacient (regardless of the fact that their understanding of biology is wrong), then due to their religious beliefs, (no matter how delusional they are, because that is their right to have delusional beliefs) they may have a case to show that the mandate would cause substantial burden on their ability to act on their belief. But if the FDA were to change the description of the morning-after pills based on factual scientific information on how it works without interfering with implantation; then they would have to change their position. I’ve read several articles saying that Hobby Lobby already provides coverage for birth control pills, if this is the case, they would have no excuse but to follow the mandate.

M.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Maureen

[talisyn]

Problems like this wouldn't even happen if we had a health-care system where employees can afford to pay for their own insurance.

See how easy this solution is?

[Just_A_Guy]

Hey - eliminate the HMOs, make it possible to meaningfully price-shop for medical services, and have everyone pay for their own health care; and you'll be surprised how quickly the skyrocketing cost of health care will get under control.

There may not be a single silver bullet to solve the problem, but this notion that everyone deserves every medical procedure available, regardless of cost or ability to pay; sure isn't helping.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hey - eliminate the HMOs, make it possible to meaningfully price-shop for medical services, and have everyone pay for their own health care; and you'll be surprised how quickly the skyrocketing cost of health care will get under control.

There may not be a single silver bullet to solve the problem, but this notion that everyone deserves every medical procedure available, regardless of cost or ability to pay; sure isn't helping.

[Guest]

Hey - eliminate the HMOs, make it possible to meaningfully price-shop for medical services, and have everyone pay for their own health care; and you'll be surprised how quickly the skyrocketing cost of health care will get under control.

There may not be a single silver bullet to solve the problem, but this notion that everyone deserves every medical procedure available, regardless of cost or ability to pay; sure isn't helping.

I had an awesome Health Insurance plan a while back. This was in Florida through Blue Cross and Blue Shield.

The cost: $145/month for a family of 4. And this is an individual plan - not something that my company subsidizes.

This is what I did - I was a contractor, I negotiated a contract where I got paid $5 more per hour in exchange for no healthcare and disability benefits. If I would have taken the benefits, I would have been out $800 less pay per month, and in addition, they deduct $450/month from my paycheck for my family of 4 to be on the PPO healthcare plan (the cheapest plan they got).

So, then I purchased this Health Insurance plan that covers Hospital and Surgical costs without maternity (they won't pay for anything including the hospitalization if I'm there to deliver a baby, of course, I didn't need it because I got spayed) and cancer (they won't pay for the anything including hospitalization if I'm there for cancer treatment). They don't pay for meds outside of the hospital/surgical center either. You have to be a non-smoker, non-drinker to qualify for the plan and you have to go through a drug test (can't be a substance abuser either). And you have to be under 65 years old. Per person cost - $60/month. Family of 4 cost - $145/month. There's no deductible or anything.

So, I paid full price for the pediatrician well-checks, runny noses, ear infections, etc. etc. BUT, I had $800 bucks. So $145/month went to the premiums, $400/month went to a Health Savings Account (tax deductible) and the rest went to other stuff. I used the HSA to pay for the well-checks, runny noses, ear infections, meds, etc. etc. And we lived a holistic lifestyle. My kid shattered his elbow and had to go to surgery - 100% covered. My other kid got stitches on his eyebrow - we went to a cosmetic surgeon to do the stitches to avoid scarring - 100% covered. Pneumonia in the hospital - 100% covered. At the end of 5 years, we had over $20,000 in the HSA.

That worked perfectly for our family's stage in life, lifestyle, and health history.

Can't do that today anymore...

[MorningStar]

What I don't understand is how did a perk employers offered voluntarily become a requirement? How can the government tell a company that they have to provide insurance? A large company here provided 100% coverage for their employees, but now that there will be a 40% tax on "cadillac plans", that's gone.

And no, I don't think Hobby Lobby or any other company should be required to cover birth control. Birth control isn't what's insanely expensive anyway. If you walk into a public health building, you can grab some free condoms.