Trump rolls back Obamacare birth control mandate

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/06/trump-rolls-back-obamacares-contraception-rule-243537

 

The Trump administration will allow virtually any employer to claim a religious or moral objection to Obamacare's birth control coverage mandate under a sweeping rollback announced Friday.

The new policies, which take effect immediately, reignite a fierce battle over one of the health care law's most controversial provisions and quickly drew legal challenges. The requirement to provide FDA-approved contraception at no cost was long opposed by religious groups that heavily favored Trump, and has been wrapped up in litigation for more than five years.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/06/trump-rolls-back-obamacares-contraception-rule-243537

 

The Trump administration will allow virtually any employer to claim a religious or moral objection to Obamacare's birth control coverage mandate under a sweeping rollback announced Friday.

The new policies, which take effect immediately, reignite a fierce battle over one of the health care law's most controversial provisions and quickly drew legal challenges. The requirement to provide FDA-approved contraception at no cost was long opposed by religious groups that heavily favored Trump, and has been wrapped up in litigation for more than five years.

Requiring insurance plans to cover birth control imposes a “substantial burden” to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and could promote “risky sexual behavior” among adolescents, the administration told reporters Thursday night.

[Sonea 138]

Another example as to why health insurance should be state based and not in the hands of religious loons.

[CaliCat 3,957]

It's good to know that among all the current issues in our country, the so-called president picked such an important and vital issue. Child in Chief?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

It's good to know that among all the current issues in our country, the so-called president picked such an important and vital issue. Child in Chief?

There is just too much sex going on, and he was not apart of it.

[bcking 3,157]

9 minutes ago, Sonea said:

Another example as to why health insurance should be state based and not in the hands of religious loons.

How would making it state based keep it out of religious loons? Unfortunately a number of state's governments would fall under that category.

 

1. Having health insurance plans that provide your employees with birth control DOES NOT alter a company's "free exercise of religion"

 

2. Easy access to birth control does not promote "risky sexual behavior" - That is just wrong. There have been plenty of studies that support that.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24785603

I can provide more if needed

Edited October 6, 2017 by bcking

[Sonea 138]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

How would making it state based keep it out of religious loons? Unfortunately a number of state's governments would fall under that category.

 

1. Having health insurance plans that provide your employees with birth control DOES NOT alter a company's "free exercise of religion"

 

2. Easy access to birth control does not promote "risky sexual behavior" - That is just wrong. There have been plenty of studies that support that.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24785603

I can provide more if needed

The state would not be allowed to make a law based on say "Catholic Law"

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Sonea said:

The state would not be allowed to make a law based on say "Catholic Law"

The federal government shouldn't be allowed to either.

[bcking 3,157]

Also -

 

Any insurance company that actually charges MORE because they offer no-cost birth control is actually scamming everyone involved. They will save SIGNIFICANT amounts of money by offering birth control. Their patient population will have less pregnancies and a single pregnancy could pay for years of a person's birth control.

 

The problem is insurance doesn't think that way. They don't see savings in one area and apply it to another area. Any savings can be seen as better for them so they don't "reinvest it" into caring for the patients. Another reason why "health insurance" is a bad idea in general.

 

I've lost count of the number of times that insurance has refused to cover outpatient care for an infant, and so the infant stays admitted in the hospital. When I do a peer to peer I explain to the insurance company that they will be paying for the hospitalization, which is FAR more than the outpatient or rehab center. It doesn't matter. They will still refuse to pay and they end up paying more money to keep the patient in the hospital. It's backwards.

[Dashinka 24,514]

25 minutes ago, bcking said:

The federal government shouldn't be allowed to either.

Correct, and doesn’t making it mandatory violate the establishment claus?  I know you stated it doesn’t, but you did not provide your argument.

[CaliCat 3,957]

37 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

There is just too much sex going on, and he was not apart of it.

 

Does the roll back also includes Viagra, Cialis, and the likes? I am sure the moral and religious objections to these must be equally strong. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by CaliCat

[Dashinka 24,514]

Just now, CaliCat said:

 

Does the roll back also includes Viagra, Cialis, and the likes? I am sure the moral and religious objections to these must be equally strong. 

Those should not be covered either.

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Correct, and doesn’t making it mandatory violate the establishment claus?  I know you stated it doesn’t, but you did not provide your argument.

Congress shall make no laws limiting the establishment or free exercise of religion (something like that, I didn't look up the exact words).

 

What does someone who doesn't belong to your religion getting birth control do to your ability to practice your religion?

 

The practice of religion doesn't include making people who aren't members of your church abide by your rules.

 

If a company is Jehovah's witnesses should they be allowed to keep their employees from getting blood transfusions covered by insurance?

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Those should not be covered either.

Whether they should or should not be covered has nothing to do with the establishment clause.

 

Covering various medications or treatments is not part of establishing or practicing any particular religion. A religious company can continue to practice their religion while their employees get the medical treatments/therapies.

[Dashinka 24,514]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Congress shall make no laws limiting the establishment or free exercise of religion (something like that, I didn't look up the exact words).

 

What does someone who doesn't belong to your religion getting birth control do to your ability to practice your religion?

 

The practice of religion doesn't include making people who aren't members of your church abide by your rules.

 

If a company is Jehovah's witnesses should they be allowed to keep their employees from getting blood transfusions covered by insurance?

The forcing of, or making a law that requires someone else to pay for it if it is against their religious beliefs?