A proposition re PPACA and Contraception:

[Just_A_Guy]

In reading some summaries of today's oral SCOTUS arguments on the Hobby Lobby case, a proposition occurred to me and I thought I'd pitch it here:

Free access to contraception* is essential to one's long-term health, and government may legislate accordingly regardless of the religious preferences of the parties involved.

Therefore, logically, free access to sexual intercourse is also essential to one's long-term health, and government may legislate accordingly regardless of the religious preferences of the parties involved.

Discuss.

*"Contraception", for the purposes of this discussion, is defined as "drugs or devices which have the effect of preventing or terminating a pregnancy, which are administered/used for the purpose of preventing or terminating a pregnancy. So it doesn't include, for example, a situation where a woman takes the pill in order to regulate an irregular monthly cycle.

[Quin]

Prostitution is already illegal.

Q

[Just_A_Guy]

At the state level, yes; but so was contraception, once upon a time. Those state laws were eventually superseded and nullified by federal precedent as our legal system's understanding of "privacy" and "health care" evolved.

I'm more interested, I guess, in fleshing out the logical and philosophical repercussions of such an argument. Legal barriers, as we've seen over the past few decades, can be changed with relative ease as social mores change.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

I'm still trying to chew on how free access to contraception is essential for one's long-term health...

[Just_A_Guy]

Here's the write-up that spurred my question. It's a riff on Time's report of Justice Kagan's observation that:

Justice Kagan: women are “quite tangibly harmed” when employers don’t provide contraceptive coverage.

[yjacket]

From the Article

"

Justice Sotomayor: how can courts know whether a corporation holds a religious belief? And what if it’s just the beliefs of the leadership, not the entire company? What happens to a non-religious minority in a corporation?

Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan asked: Because nobody is forcing Hobby Lobby or Conestoga to provide health insurance, they can simply pay the tax penalty instead.

Justice Kagan: women are “quite tangibly harmed” when employers don’t provide contraceptive coverage."

That's about as disingenuous as the IRS claiming that paying your Income Tax is "voluntary" (which is on their website by the way), what a load of crap.

The 1st one is good too, umm yeah you know the Freedom of Religion concept, is more of a freedom of belief rather than "religious belief". If the government gets to determine what is or isn't religious belief then they get to determine what is or isn't religious freedom.

9 Black-Robed gods get to determine the fate of a Country, just great . . . .

[Lakumi]

I'm still trying to chew on how free access to contraception is essential for one's long-term health...

prevents the spread of STDs, seems like a good enough reason to me.

[estradling75]

prevents the spread of STDs, seems like a good enough reason to me.

So does abstinence... But you know people being responsible for their actions seem to be going out of style

[NeuroTypical]

9 Black-Robed gods get to determine the fate of a Country, just great . . . .

Worse than that - we already have a good guess how 8 of them will swing, which means the fate rests in the hands of one guy.

[Lakumi]

So does abstinence... But you know people being responsible for their actions seem to be going out of style

Its more then that, I am a responsable human being, but all I've not done is gone down the religious marriage ceremonies. Using myself as an example, why should I follow the teachings of a religion I don't believe in?

Yes some are irresponsible-that's never gonna change.

I don't see it as cut and dry as that. Nothing in life is black and white.

[estradling75]

Its more then that, I am a responsable human being, but all I've not done is gone down the religious marriage ceremonies. Using myself as an example, why should I follow the teachings of a religion I don't believe in?

Yes some are irresponsible-that's never gonna change.

I don't see it as cut and dry as that. Nothing in life is black and white.

You don't have to be religious to take responsibility for your actions (That is black and white).

Those who are irresponsible aren't going become suddenly become responsible because the government allows something (That is black and white).

And most contraceptives do nothing against STD therefore your primary reason falls apart

[Lakumi]

You don't have to be religious to take responsibility for your actions (That is black and white).

Those who are irresponsible aren't going become suddenly become responsible because the government allows something (That is black and white).

And most contraceptives do nothing against STD therefore your primary reason falls apart

Just because you aren't living the life of abstinance, doesn't mean you are an irresponsable person.

[Just_A_Guy]

Its more then that, I am a responsable human being, but all I've not done is gone down the religious marriage ceremonies. Using myself as an example, why should I follow the teachings of a religion I don't believe in?

I'm not aware of any socially conservative group who is insisting that you do. But a lot of us are thinking that if you're going to make a lifestyle choice that's going to cost you additional money and put your health at risk, then you--and only you--should assume the financial liability for the lifestyle that you yourself have undertaken.

And in a broader sense, one of the reasons lots of conservatives are wary of putting everyone into a common, government-run insurance pool is that people do start thinking "hey--wait a minute--why should Lakumi get the SuperSized Grease Meal with Big Gulp when I'm going to be paying for that heart attack he's giving himself?" It's very natural to assume that since I'm paying for your life, I should be able to have some input into your personal lifestyle choices--as expressed by Harrison Ford in Sabrina:

David Larrabee: You're talking about my life.

Linus Larrabee: I pay for your life, David. My life makes your life possible.

David Larrabee: I resent that.

Linus Larrabee: So do I!!!

[estradling75]

Just because you aren't living the life of abstinance, doesn't mean you are an irresponsable person.

Nope.... But taking an action and forcing someone else (through the government in this case) to pay for it is.

If a person want the privilege to have sex they should also bear the responsibility for the outcome and/or preventing that outcome.

[Lakumi]

Nope.... But taking an action and forcing someone else (through the government in this case) to pay for it is.

If a person want the privilege to have sex they should also bear the responsibility for the outcome and/or preventing that outcome.

and generally any well informed, intelligent person do understand such things.

Where I live there is a huge level of teenage pregnancy and young single mothers, a population of idiotic, uninformed people.

I can see where one would be angry at having to pay for their idiotic mistakes, certainly.

[Leah]

I'm still trying to chew on how free access to contraception is essential for one's long-term health...

I am still trying to figure out why birth control coverage is mandated...but health insurance companies are free to deny whatever other health care they feel they want to. Any of us can look at our plans and see a list of we-don't-cover-this. Plenty of us have stories about being denied coverage by our insurance companies of one thing or another that a doctor (or multiple doctors) say is medically necessary. What's so special about birth control?

Here's a thought...if you don't want to get pregnant, either don't have sex or go out and purchase the birth control method of your choice.

I worked at a private, Catholic university. One year, the students were up in arms, demanding the university provide them with free contraception. Funny, they could all find their way to the bars, but not to the drugstore? (And, yes, it's ironic, it was a Catholic campus).

Maybe I'm just not bright enough to get it.

[Lakumi]

I am still trying to figure out why birth control coverage is mandated...but health insurance companies are free to deny whatever other health care they feel they want to. Any of us can look at our plans and see a list of we-don't-cover-this. Plenty of us have stories about being denied coverage by our insurance companies of one thing or another that a doctor (or multiple doctors) say is medically necessary. What's so special about birth control?

Here's a thought...if you don't want to get pregnant, either don't have sex or go out and purchase the birth control method of your choice.

I worked at a private, Catholic university. One year, the students were up in arms, demanding the university provide them with free contraception. Funny, they could all find their way to the bars, but not to the drugstore? (And, yes, it's ironic, it was a Catholic campus).

Maybe I'm just not bright enough to get it.

or if that is too embarassing, at least here, shopping malls have crank machines in the bathrooms, they also have mints which I still like

[Blackmarch]

In reading some summaries of today's oral SCOTUS arguments on the Hobby Lobby case, a proposition occurred to me and I thought I'd pitch it here:

Free access to contraception* is essential to one's long-term health, and government may legislate accordingly regardless of the religious preferences of the parties involved.

Therefore, logically, free access to sexual intercourse is also essential to one's long-term health, and government may legislate accordingly regardless of the religious preferences of the parties involved.

Discuss.

*"Contraception", for the purposes of this discussion, is defined as "drugs or devices which have the effect of preventing or terminating a pregnancy, which are administered/used for the purpose of preventing or terminating a pregnancy. So it doesn't include, for example, a situation where a woman takes the pill in order to regulate an irregular monthly cycle.

do away with companies providing healthcare but rather let them pay an amount of cash to an individual that would be around what they would have paid for that individuals health care, and then the paid individual can use that money to purchase whatever healthcare.

[Quin]

do away with companies providing healthcare but rather let them pay an amount of cash to an individual that would be around what they would have paid for that individuals health care, and then the paid individual can use that money to purchase whatever healthcare.

That's exactly what many companies have done.

Not most, for sure, but that's capitalism for ya.

The only place I trust morality LESS than govt?

Companies

Because there is no mandate that companies HAVE to do that. Most just pocket the savings, yah?

Of course, the companies that REALLY care about their employees... Don't up their salary. They up non-taxable, non-health coverage up-rate, benefits (tuition reimbursement, gym & club membership, on site catering, grocery & expense accounts, company cars or zip cars, bus passes, PTO, on site childcare, certification trainin& testing) things that if salaried could well add 1-2 zeros (a couple tax brackets).... To keep salaried income low, and quality of living high.

Besides...the group rates that companies covered employees under was nowhere near as expensive as individual insurance. We ran into that with my ex contracting. Companies would offer insurance, or offer the increased salary. Which, at best, would only cover up,to 40% of an individual plan. Not including me & kid lets. Great for a young, single, healthy guy. Not great for families, or those with regular medical needs.

Also wouldn't cover the 10s of millions (who are now covered) whose companies didn't offer insurance, or who were unable to get individual health insurance (self employed, unemployed, pre-existing conditions).

Q

[Guest]

That's exactly what many companies have done.

Not most, for sure, but that's capitalism for ya.

The only place I trust morality LESS than govt?

Companies

Because there is no mandate that companies HAVE to do that. Most just pocket the savings, yah?

Of course, the companies that REALLY care about their employees... Don't up their salary. They up non-taxable, non-health coverage up-rate, benefits (tuition reimbursement, gym & club membership, on site catering, grocery & expense accounts, company cars or zip cars, bus passes, PTO, on site childcare, certification trainin& testing) things that if salaried could well add 1-2 zeros (a couple tax brackets).... To keep salaried income low, and quality of living high.

Besides...the group rates that companies covered employees under was nowhere near as expensive as individual insurance. We ran into that with my ex contracting. Companies would offer insurance, or offer the increased salary. Which, at best, would only cover up,to 40% of an individual plan. Not including me & kid lets. Great for a young, single, healthy guy. Not great for families, or those with regular medical needs.

Also wouldn't cover the 10s of millions (who are now covered) whose companies didn't offer insurance, or who were unable to get individual health insurance (self employed, unemployed, pre-existing conditions).

Q

The big elephant in the room is, of course, that it is not the responsibility of the government, nor a company, to provide for your healthcare.

And the other big elephant is that you don't have to buy anything a company provides. Whereas, you can't opt out of government mandates.