Notre Dame Files Lawsuit Over Obamacare

[k1ssme1m1r1sh]

How lovely, a bunch of men sitting around discussing things they have never experienced.

My health insurance covered the cost of three births, two regular and one c-section. The c-section cost $16,000 and when I asked for a birth control implant that was $1200 I paid out of pocket for it. It took about 6 months but I paid it off. The thing is, if you are paying out your nose for health insurance you should be able to control your reproduction. This is not about medicaid, or tax payer money, it's about employee's paying for private health insurance and should be able to control their reproduction.

Three kids was enough for me. Thankfully, because of my extensive health issues related to my reproductive organs I no longer have them, but if I did, I'd be sentenced to a life of taking some form of contraception until they quit working.

And since single mothers out number single fathers 5 to 1, I'd say that letting women control their reproduction is crucial when society has the philosophy of "Mama's baby, daddy's maybe" men have the opportunity to walk away (not all men do, so don't slam me) but they can. I'd rather see a woman PREVENT a pregnancy than TERMINATE one because she doesn't want to be a single mom. Hate Obama all you want to, hate the mandate all you want to, but all women should have the RIGHT to decide not to be a mother if they aren't ready or don't want to!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Hate Obama all you want to, hate the mandate all you want to, but all women should have the RIGHT to decide not to be a mother if they aren't ready or don't want to!

Welcome to the party, Ashlee.

We moved on from discussing birth control a while ago, but no one here has argued that women shouldn't have that right. The original topic was whether the Feds have the right to force Catholic organizations to pay for something that contradicts their sincerely held religious beliefs.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

It sounds like you are saying that the Federal Government should force self-insured religious institutions to pay for the abortions and contraception for its employees, despite it being contrary to what they consider their essential mission, because otherwise women everywhere "won't have the right to decide not to be a mother". Is that right?

 

[Rack Em]

Nevermind, I'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole. I'm designating Whiskey as my spokesperson.

 

[ACamp1900]

1) It's unconstitutional for the federal government to force a religious entity to directly violate its conscience by paying for "health" services that it finds (and has found for many, many years) unconscionable. This has been VERY FUNDAMENTAL to the Church for quite awhile. It's not even asking the government to repeal the entire mandate, just to give exemption to Catholic affiliates.

2) Across the board, birth control isn't that expensive until one delves into full-blown surgical operations. Employees can artificially control their reproduction if they wish; if you work for a Catholic affiliate you just have to pay for it out of pocket. If paying "x" number of dollars out of one's pocket for birth control every month is a "make or break" situation with one's employer, priorities might need to be evaluated.

3) There are lifestyle changes that one can make to prevent pregnancy too that never fail. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights by making a responsible choice.

Yeah, sorry kissme, but trying to make this some affront to women’s rights, which somehow makes it wrong for men to even consider discussing… Usually when people go there it reeks of someone who has no other card to play. There are plenty of good points to be made as this thread has already proven. I still have yet to see or hear anyone actually hate or attack women’s heath as no one is trying to take contraception away or make anything illegal.

Anyway, here’s two points and I’ll leave it to ya’ll…

1.) no adult should ever expect ”the right” to make the neighbors pay for anything of theirs... especially in terms of lifestyle choices.

2.) If a man, woman, or otherwise wish to not have to terminate a pregnancy, how about being a responsible adult from the get go and only have sex when you’re ready for what comes after??? I would say the same thing to the dead beat dads of the world

 

[eNDzone]

It is a sad situation when the goverment can force any corporation
,private organization or church to cover any procedure in their BENIFIT program. I am afraid the slippery slope has already been turned into a sledding hill.

 

[k1ssme1m1r1sh]

Welcome to the party, Ashlee.

We moved on from discussing birth control a while ago, but no one here has argued that women shouldn't have that right. The original topic was whether the Feds have the right to force Catholic organizations to pay for something that contradicts their sincerely held religious beliefs.

I only read the first 3 or so pages. That line is blurry, because of you hire non Catholics they still rights too. I personally would love to work at ND, but I disagree with many catholic beliefs so I never will.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I only read the first 3 or so pages. That line is blurry, because of you hire non Catholics they still rights too.

What rights do you think those non-Catholic employees have? The right to dictate the terms of compensation for a religious organization that employs thousands of people?

I personally would love to work at ND, but I disagree with many catholic beliefs so I never will.

That's the key. You and every current employee of ND have the absolute right not to work there if you don't like the compensation being offered. But you don't have the right to demand that a Catholic school violate its own sincerely held religious beliefs. Nor do the Feds.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I still haven't read a single sensible justification in this thread for why a functional market in health care services is fundamentally impossible.

I'm not saying it is impossible, but there are people in our country that simply cannot afford to buy their own healthcare coverage. If we start from the premise that everyone has a right to basic health services (which I understand is not a universally held belief, and we can have a separate debate on that, but it is outside the scope of this post), then any solution has to account for those people.

In my opinion, the best, most cost-effective way to get those people covered at the minimum cost to everyone else to expand the pool to include everyone, then spread the costs out to those that can most afford to pay. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, but single-payer seems like the best solution to me because I have seen no evidence that the private market can accomplish the goal of getting everyone insured. Another issue I have with a market-based approach is that it has led us to the employer-based system we have now, which is one of the stupidest things going.

The thing I don't get is that nobody argues that our national defense would be better off if we privatized the military and relied on market-based competition there, even though the military costs tax payers a ton of money. Nobody argues that our rights and freedoms would be better protected by private courts competing in the open market for business, even though the courts cost the taxpayers a ton of money to operate. To me, our right to be healthy is a basic right and should be viewed as just as important as our right to be free. We should not have people profiting off of our health. I understand that, having only known the system we now have, a lot of people think that is crazy. I don't.

 

[Buster Bluth]

How lovely, a bunch of men sitting around discussing things they have never experienced.

My health insurance covered the cost of three births, two regular and one c-section. The c-section cost $16,000 and when I asked for a birth control implant that was $1200 I paid out of pocket for it. It took about 6 months but I paid it off. The thing is, if you are paying out your nose for health insurance you should be able to control your reproduction. This is not about medicaid, or tax payer money, it's about employee's paying for private health insurance and should be able to control their reproduction.

Three kids was enough for me. Thankfully, because of my extensive health issues related to my reproductive organs I no longer have them, but if I did, I'd be sentenced to a life of taking some form of contraception until they quit working.

And since single mothers out number single fathers 5 to 1, I'd say that letting women control their reproduction is crucial when society has the philosophy of "Mama's baby, daddy's maybe" men have the opportunity to walk away (not all men do, so don't slam me) but they can. I'd rather see a woman PREVENT a pregnancy than TERMINATE one because she doesn't want to be a single mom. Hate Obama all you want to, hate the mandate all you want to, but all women should have the RIGHT to decide not to be a mother if they aren't ready or don't want to!

This is baloney.

I was raised by a single mother (and four brothers and sisters), and my sister is a single mother right now. But spare me that "men can walk away" **** (and there is childsupport). If you don't want to be in the position of not having the guy leave you if you get pregnant--they don't f*ck with him! It's a 100% successful solution, and a responsible one too. Simply put, if you're in the position of "my baby's daddy left me because I got pregnant, and I got pregnant because I decided not to use BC because it wasn't free for me" then you're an irresponsible loser throwing your problems onto society.

All women already have the right to decide to not be a mother....it's called abstinence. It's also called condoms--it's also called the right to purchase BC. You can't have "rights" to something that cost money per se, you have the right to own a gun, not to walk into the gun store and have every gun in there for free. You have the uninhibited ability to use BC, but that doesn't mean that it's free either.

And before you say the "abstinence is ridiculous to expect"--I'm 22 and in the "prime of my life" at a party school, and I personally made the responsible decision to opt out of having sex--because I don't want to ruin my life. I decided freshmen year to be responsible with my body. This October will be four years cold turkey.

I am 100% for the covering "birth control" pills for a slew of medical reasons, but to expect that a private health care company should have to cover your sexual habits it's just ludicrous. To expect that a religious institution, which is directly opposed to the action, should have to pay for your sexual habits is just insane. And for the record, I think the Catholic Church is ***-backwards in their belief, but I respect their freedom of religion.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The thing I don't get is that nobody argues that our national defense would be better off if we privatized the military and relied on market-based competition there, even though the military costs tax payers a ton of money. Nobody argues that our rights and freedoms would be better protected by private courts competing in the open market for business, even though the courts cost the taxpayers a ton of money to operate.

In 1990, it was a 50:1 enlisted soldier to contractor ratio, today it is 10:1. It exists.

To me, our right to be healthy is a basic right and should be viewed as just as important as our right to be free.

Well I take the opposite stance. In the US you have the right to be the most unhealthy obese smoker you want to be...just don't expect me to pay for you bills when your irresponsibility catches up with you.

We should not have people profiting off of our health.

I think we should definitely have people being paid huge sums of money operate the system, and that they should have money hand over fist to fun R&D. I want the best and the brightest working for my health, and they require money, no?

 

[Rhode Irish]

With all due respect, I don't have the time to fully present every single one of these points, and even if I did nobody would read a 7,000 word post. So can we agree not to do this petty thing where we take an obvious point and try to make some absurd counterargument?

In 1990, it was a 50:1 enlisted soldier to contractor ratio, today it is 10:1. It exists.

I almost explained this in my initial post, but I decided that it would be too ridiculous for someone to make the contractor argument. I know there are defense contractors. I'm talking about abolishing the U.S. Navy and having a company start a private naval force that would bid on wars or military operations. Nobody would endorse that, at least not anybody with any sense. That was my point.

Well I take the opposite stance. In the US you have the right to be the most unhealthy obese smoker you want to be...just don't expect me to pay for you bills when your irresponsibility catches up with you.

I don't disagree with this, but it doesn't really address the fact that people actually do get sick without it being their fault. If you want to draft the statute that defines self-inflicted health issues and eliminates them from coverage, be my guest. It is a problem that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, I see the same incompassionate people that would gut medicare deciding that everything is "self-inflicted" to an absurd degree and totally undermining the point of health coverage.

I think we should definitely have people being paid huge sums of money operate the system, and that they should have money hand over fist to fun R&D. I want the best and the brightest working for my health, and they require money, no?

OK, again, this is not what I was saying. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not read any of my previous posts in this thread where I specifically stated numerous times that service providers, pharm companies and med device companies aren't the targets here. I admit that I didn't fully express this in the post you quoted me from because I didn't want to keep repeating myself. Shareholders of insurance companies should not be making money on sick people because they are not contributing anything to the care. They are only feeding into a system that drives the price of care through the roof. An investor in a pharm or device company, for instance, is providing capital that is being used to develop life-saving technology or medicine. There is a difference.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I guess I just don't view the word socialism as a dirty word. Some things are better left to the open market. Some things are better left to a productive government.

Most modern societies are generally a hybrid of the two.

Well socialism (lower case "s"), in the sense that we do live in a society and have to live with each other, is extremely agreeable. The smaller the scale of the government (local>state>federal), the more "socialist" the government should get.

The problem with America right now is the federal government, not government in general. It's much easier for my fellow Ohioans to fix a problem in Columbus than it is in Washington DC. That's just the way it was designed.

Here's how I look at it, here's a bell curve:

Now pretend the X-axis was "Government Size" and the Y-axis was "Government Efficiency." Local governments, limited with a (varying) lack of wherewithal, can't be as efficient with their duties and need some help; they are on the left side of the curve, near the bottom.

State governments, having billions in wherewithal and a smaller population, are at the top. The federal government, being so huge that it's too big for it's own good, is horribly inefficient. And international governments, like the UN, are so far to the right that it's ridiculous.

That's why I'm a Republican, I want to see more power given to the states. I generally lean to the left on issues (I think local governments should have all sorts of powers), but I recognize that state's are the most efficient level. This is really just Economies of Scale turned upside down, no?

 

[Buster Bluth]

With all due respect, I don't have the time to fully present every single one of these points, and even if I did nobody would read a 7,000 word post. So can we agree not to do this petty thing where we take an obvious point and try to make some absurd counterargument?



I almost explained this in my initial post, but I decided that it would be too ridiculous for someone to make the contractor argument. I know there are defense contractors. I'm talking about abolishing the U.S. Navy and having a company start a private naval force that would bid on wars or military operations. Nobody would endorse that, at least not anybody with any sense. That was my point.



I don't disagree with this, but it doesn't really address the fact that people actually do get sick without it being their fault. If you want to draft the statute that defines self-inflicted health issues and eliminates them from coverage, be my guest. It is a problem that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, I see the same incompassionate people that would gut medicare deciding that everything is "self-inflicted" to an absurd degree and totally undermining the point of health coverage.




OK, again, this is not what I was saying. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not read any of my previous posts in this thread where I specifically stated numerous times that service providers, pharm companies and med device companies aren't the targets here. I admit that I didn't fully express this in the post you quoted me from because I didn't want to keep repeating myself. Shareholders of insurance companies should not be making money on sick people because they are not contributing anything to the care. They are only feeding into a system that drives the price of care through the roof. An investor in a pharm or device company, for instance, is providing capital that is being used to develop life-saving technology or medicine. There is a difference.

i find that all to be agreeable.

 

[k1ssme1m1r1sh]

Yeah, sorry kissme, but trying to make this some affront to women’s rights, which somehow makes it wrong for men to even consider discussing… Usually when people go there it reeks of someone who has no other card to play. There are plenty of good points to be made as this thread has already proven. I still have yet to see or hear anyone actually hate or attack women’s heath as no one is trying to take contraception away or make anything illegal.

Anyway, here’s two points and I’ll leave it to ya’ll…

1.) no adult should ever expect ”the right” to make the neighbors pay for anything of theirs... especially in terms of lifestyle choices.

2.) If a man, woman, or otherwise wish to not have to terminate a pregnancy, how about being a responsible adult from the get go and only have sex when you’re ready for what comes after??? I would say the same thing to the dead beat dads of the world

To say that this is not a women's rights issue is naive and false. You are not saying that the irresponsible choices of the person who couldn't stay out of the drive thru isn't entitled to cardian care when they have to get a quadruple bypass, you're not saying that the smoker isn't entitled to chemo when he gets lung cancer, as a matter of fact no one is worried about all the lifestyle choices made irresponsibly are affecting your healthcare or being paid for by your "tax dollars"....no. It is attacking birth control. Something you will never take being a man. There are plenty of health benefits associated with birth control, and for some women it's medically necessary. If private health insurance will pay for health care issues caused by recklessness, it should pay for birth control PERIOD.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I always enjoy your posts, Brad.

In my opinion, the best, most cost-effective way to get those people covered at the minimum cost to everyone else to expand the pool to include everyone, then spread the costs out to those that can most afford to pay. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, but single-payer seems like the best solution to me because I have seen no evidence that the private market can accomplish the goal of getting everyone insured.

It makes sense, and we know single payor systems can work. There's just not much evidence that it's the best solution for this country, though I suppose one has to have a plausible alternative to make that argument.

I'd prefer to roll all entitlement programs into a single transfer payment along the lines of Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax. Tie it to the CPI (to fight inflation) and the Cost of Living index (to account for regional differences), and make benefits contingent upon being employed or actively seeking employment (let's leave disability aside for now).

Now every family in America is receiving a cash stipend to get them up to whatever we determine is the minimum standard of living. Then back that up with universal government-provided catastrophic health insurance. For the sake of argument, let's say the deductible is $10,000 annually before it kicks in. That $10,000 will be factored into and distributed to those receiving the government stipend. They now have an incentive to take better care of themselves, because if they don't have to spend it on medical care, they get to keep it.

That's just one possible solution, but there are many others as well.

Another issue I have with a market-based approach is that it has led us to the employer-based system we have now, which is one of the stupidest things going.

The rise of employer-sponsored coverage was an accident of history. Due to the shortage of labor during WWII, the Feds imposed strict wage controls to prevent employers from attracting employees with higher wages. So employers started offering fringe benefits instead, like health insurance. The Federal government created our disastrous third party payor model, not the free market. As I've mentioned previously, this country hasn't seen a truly market-based approach in almost a century.

The thing I don't get is that nobody argues that our national defense would be better off if we privatized the military and relied on market-based competition there, even though the military costs tax payers a ton of money.

How much we spend on the military is a separate issue. We've let the rest of the Western world free ride on our military spending for far too long, but I digress. Governments are, in many senses, little more than monopolies on the legitimate use of force. It's not a very relevant comparison to health care.

Nobody argues that our rights and freedoms would be better protected by private courts competing in the open market for business, even though the courts cost the taxpayers a ton of money to operate.

This has, in fact, been happening for years. Private arbitration and mediation is essentially a private court system, and it handles a larger % of cases with every passing year.

To me, our right to be healthy is a basic right and should be viewed as just as important as our right to be free. We should not have people profiting off of our health. I understand that, having only known the system we now have, a lot of people think that is crazy. I don't.

It's not crazy. You just have a commonly misguided antagonism toward market-based solutions to our health care crisis because you, like most on the left, have been led to believe that the market got us into this mess. On the contrary, the Feds created the mess, and they've just made it much worse by passing Obamacare.

 

[ACamp1900]

To say that this is not a women's rights issue is naive and false. You are not saying that the irresponsible choices of the person who couldn't stay out of the drive thru isn't entitled to cardian care when they have to get a quadruple bypass, you're not saying that the smoker isn't entitled to chemo when he gets lung cancer, as a matter of fact no one is worried about all the lifestyle choices made irresponsibly are affecting your healthcare or being paid for by your "tax dollars"....no. It is attacking birth control. Something you will never take being a man. There are plenty of health benefits associated with birth control, and for some women it's medically necessary. If private health insurance will pay for health care issues caused by recklessness, it should pay for birth control PERIOD.

few things, I teach intro to health at a local JC and one of the many interesting topics we have covered is the recent break throughs in the development of male birth control pills...

second, I already said no one should ever expect 'the right' to have someone else to pay for their poor lifestyle choices, so there is my personal stance on that... but in interest of staying on topic, there is no Catholic Doctrine that says eating a cheese burger is not allowed, so the comparison in this discussion really doesn't hold.

next, so according to you this has nothing to do with conscience protection or religious freedom and everything to do with just hating birth control?? correct? You do realize one could just as eaily ignore all logic and just call you Anti-Catholic...

finally, I am in full support of private entities fighting to keep their conscience protection alive and the fed the hell out of their everyday practices... the last thing on my mind in this discussion is some made up war on women. I have yet to see anyone or hear from anyone who is moving to take any contraception away from anyone, male or female... and that is certainly not what I want to see happen anyway so yeah... For me, if you want to lose me on political issues, then cry racism, bigotry, sexism anything along those lines when a simple lying out of your case will win 9/10 if your case is a strong one. Stooping to the name game is the dead giveaway of a weak cause imo. That’s just how I see these issues.

 

[Buster Bluth]

It is attacking birth control. Something you will never take being a man.

There are plenty of health benefits associated with birth control, and for some women it's medically necessary.

I could easily be wrong here, but I'm not sure that I've heard people say they're against issuing the BC pills for medical reasons. One of my best friends, a woman and a virgin, is on BC for medical reasons. I'm not sure that they're opposed to that, but I'd love the clarification.

But there are also medical hazards with the pill. It doesn't protect you from any STD's.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I could easily be wrong here, but I'm not sure that I've heard people say they're against issuing the BC pills for medical reasons. One of my best friends, a woman and a virgin, is on BC for medical reasons. I'm not sure that they're opposed to that, but I'd love the clarification.

The Church doesn't oppose use of contraceptives for legitimate medical purposes. I know ND doctors have prescribed it for female students in the past.

 

[k1ssme1m1r1sh]

Condoms are not a prescribed medication. Nice try!

I'd love to see a male birth control pills in my lifetime.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Condoms are not a prescribed medication. Nice try!

I'd love to see a male birth control pills in my lifetime.

Not nice try about it. I've never met a guy who's DTF, when asked to wear (or buy) a condom has said "Nahh, I'll just play xbox."

And who gives a **** if it's prescribed? If you need a doctor to sign off on it, it should be free?

 

[ACamp1900]

Condoms are not a prescribed medication. Nice try!

I'd love to see a male birth control pills in my lifetime.

Condoms easily could be if not for that damn war on men's health...



I too would love to see male birth control... for a number of reasons... I honestly believe it's coming pretty dang quickly from what I have read, who knows.

 

[ND NYC]

what if the Pope/Vatican ever approved the use of condoms or contraception...would anyone's views on this topic change to reflect those of their Church?

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

To say that this is such an issue is to fail to appreciate the actual situation. The letter written by the university president which accompanies the complaint cannot be any more clear about this.



Neither the letter nor the complaint seek to prevent access to contraception, in fact it has affirmed the right of all persons to make that decision. What is at issue here is a private university asserting its right (1) to the free exercise of its religion and (2) from being forced to subsidize the rights of others. Both of these, though not without moral implications, are fundamentally constitutional issues. First, the First Amendment prohibits government from making laws that specifically target religious activity, both in the application of and motivation for those laws. Second, there is no right to receive, from either a public or a private entity, benefits to secure even fundamental rights, even if that assistance would be necessary.

You have every right to contraception. What you do not have a right to is to force anyone else, whether it is another person, a private entity like Notre Dame, or the government to pay for that right. That's what this is about.

lmao... you sound like a lawyer already.

 

[Anchorman]

To say that this is such an issue is to fail to appreciate the actual situation. The letter written by the university president which accompanies the complaint cannot be any more clear about this.



Neither the letter nor the complaint seek to prevent access to contraception, in fact it has affirmed the right of all persons to make that decision. What is at issue here is a private university asserting its right (1) to the free exercise of its religion and (2) from being forced to subsidize the rights of others. Both of these, though not without moral implications, are fundamentally constitutional issues. First, the First Amendment prohibits government from making laws that specifically target religious activity, both in the application of and motivation for those laws. Second, there is no right to receive, from either a public or a private entity, benefits to secure even fundamental rights, even if that assistance would be necessary.

You have every right to contraception. What you do not have a right to is to force anyone else, whether it is another person, a private entity like Notre Dame, or the government to pay for that right. That's what this is about.

Well said.


On a side note, the awkward moment when you read a Jason Pham post, then go to someone's facebook profile and see a Jason Pham comment on their wall...

 

[Bluto]

It seems that the easiest solution would be to remove all employers from providing health insurance. That would eliminate these conflicts of interest. In my opinion the complexity of this thread alone seems to provide a pretty good arguement for a single payer national system. That way all medical procedures that are legal would be available to anyone that requires them and religious institutions would not even be part of the equation. Interesting discussion though.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

It seems that the easiest solution would be to remove all employers from providing health insurance. That would eliminate these conflicts of interest. In my opinion the complexity of this thread alone seems to provide a pretty good arguement for a single payer national system. That way all medical procedures that are legal would be available to anyone that requires them and religious institutions would not even be part of the equation. Interesting discussion though.

Then the government gets to tell you what medical procedures YOU will or will not get.

Yeah, that sounds like a fantastic system.




If we go to a single payer system, where will the Canadians go when they get denied in Canada?

 

[Rhode Irish]

Then the government gets to tell you what medical procedures YOU will or will not get.

I have infinite more trust in the government to make that decision than some faceless corporation. You make it seem like under the current system you get to make the decision yourself. At least you get to elect your own government.

 

[Downinthebend]

I have infinite more trust in the government to make that decision than some faceless corporation. You make it seem like under the current system you get to make the decision yourself. At least you get to elect your own government.

What do you think of lobbying?

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I have infinite more trust in the government to make that decision than some faceless corporation. You make it seem like under the current system you get to make the decision yourself. At least you get to elect your own government.

HA! I trust business 103954098x more than I trust government. And with my insurance I do get to choose. You actually have a choice in your insurance, your government is elected by someone else.