Obamacare vs. the Catholic Church

[Moliere]

Maybe the churches will take some comfort in the fact that they are not paying for contraception services, but rather, they are paying for insurance. The insurance pays for the contraception services, and that is only if the policy holder files a claim for a particular service. I realize this is not such a great distinction, but it might be all they have. The right to worship and believe as one chooses does not include the right to set up NFP's that violate the law of the land. If the Catholic church really wants to pack up its bags and abandon their charitable work in some areas over the fact that they might end up paying, second hand, for reproductive services, then they aren't going to get much sympathy from me. I feel even more strongly about this given that the vast majority of American Catholics are fine with most forms of contraception. The other viable option remains on the table -- the Catholic NFP's can simply pay workers well enough to buy their own insurance, and then the moral dilemma becomes the sole problem of the individual who, if they are Catholic, probably want a policy that includes contraceptive services.

I pretty much agree with this. I'll add that I sympathize with the position of the church, but it's an interesting situation given that most Catholics (I've heard a % as high as 98%) don't follow the contraception doctrine. I think if the doctrine were better followed then I'd have more sympathy, but it's not so I don't.

I still don't like the mandate. I just don't see a middle of the road solution works here. Either more free market competition or a single payer system would seem to be much better, but that's clearly my opinion.

[Pelado]

Thanks for the find, Pelado. Those penalties don't really seem all that onerous. That obviously depends on the nature of the business, but if a company is operating on such tight margins that it can not afford to pay a single person's salary (the penalty) in order to offset the nation's investment into that business's healthy workforce, then they might be better off downsizing to get below the 50 person limit.

Yes, I noticed the part-time scenario, which is interesting. From the vantage of a taxpayer who is going to be invested in these people's healthcare, I'm glad to see that businesses can't get off the hook entirely by switching to a part-time labor strategy.

This is exactly what will happen - businesses that are near the cutoff will actively avoid adding additional personnel. This is not a great policy for jobs creation.

Mandates have a constitutional problem as well as a jobs problem. The more difficult it is to do employ people, the less businesses will want to do it. I would much prefer that health insurance not be tied into employment.

You obviously can't say that categorically.

But looking at the penalties you shared, it seems like it would be way better, financially, to just pay the penalty and then wash one's hands of the whole thing.

I did.

While it may not be true for all not-for-profit organizations, for the Catholic-related charities in the present discussion, raising everyone's wage up over $88,200 is simply not viable. If the law stays in force as is, it's more cost-effective to just pay the penalties.

[Moliere]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpoli...white-house-pl

Middle of the road solution is being proposed. Seems like an adequate solution, although you could argue the Catholic-affiliated entities are still paying for contraception, but at least they aren't paying directly.

The compromise would require insurance companies to offer contraception coverage to employees direction, going around the religious institutions. It's already being dismissed by the Catholic hierarchy as insufficient, and blasted from the stage of a conservative gathering across town in Washington, D.C. The insurance industry's position on the move also remains unclear.

[Jacob]

"offer contraception coverage to employees direction"

What does this mean?


I agree with this

jimgeraghty @jimgeraghty
Sebelius believes women should not have to pay for birth control themselves. That's my view on lingerie, but I don't make it policy.

[Moliere]

What does this mean?

I think McKay mistyped "directly". Basically the compromise is that insurance companies can offer health insurance plans without contraception coverage if they offer free contraception directly to participants. That way the health care premiums would not directly include the cost for contraception.

I doubt the Cahtolic church will fall in line with this because it's easy to show that they are still paying for the contraception indirectly through increased premiums, but it does seem like a middle of the road solution that should work.

I did hear about a bypass that Hawaii used where third parties offered contracpetion coverage, however the church would still have to refer someone to the third party. One catholic bishop was not encouraged by this solution since they don't want to refer someone to something they deem as sinful. In fact, he likened this to having to refer someone to p0rn.

[Jacob]

I think McKay mistyped "directly". Basically the compromise is that insurance companies can offer health insurance plans without contraception coverage if they offer free contraception directly to participants. That way the health care premiums would not directly include the cost for contraception.

I doubt the Cahtolic church will fall in line with this because it's easy to show that they are still paying for the contraception indirectly through increased premiums, but it does seem like a middle of the road solution that should work.

I did hear about a bypass that Hawaii used where third parties offered contracpetion coverage, however the church would still have to refer someone to the third party. One catholic bishop was not encouraged by this solution since they don't want to refer someone to something they deem as sinful. In fact, he likened this to having to refer someone to p0rn.

So insurance companies will offer plans that don't include contraceptives, but they will give away the contraceptives for free? And some idiot thinks the cots of those free contraceptives won't be included in the cost of the insurance?

[RobinFinderson]

What do we tell religious pacifists who don't want their taxes to fund the mechanisms of war? We tell them 'sorry bub, you are sol.'

How far do we carry the logic? Sorry Catholic employers, but you are sol.

[Jacob]

What do we tell religious pacifists who don't want their taxes to fund the mechanisms of war? We tell them 'sorry bub, you are sol.'

How far do we carry the logic? Sorry Catholic employers, but you are sol.

We carry the logic perhaps as far as it will take us. But your logic is not sound. We aren't talking about religious objections to the state using general tax funds to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients in this case. That has been going on for a very long time and is not part of the current debate.

[Jacob]

If it were a problem that health insurance costs too much, a good way to make the problem even worse would be to require insurance companies to provide all sort of non-essential "health" benefits at no cost to the insured. In better words:

The worst part about watching President Obama and Secretary Sebelius sell the HHS mandate “compromise — assuring us that there are ways besides playing your gee-tar on the MTV to get money for nothing — was that it doubled as a concise reminder of everything that sucks about Obamacare.

Companies will be forced to provide coverage for certain “essential” care without copays, if they provide health insurance at all. If they don’t they’ll pay a hefty fine. What comprises “essential” care is determined by “experts” and decreed by the Executive. Those experts and that executive have in fact decreed that abortifacients count as essential. For now (and as a matter of policy, not law) religious objectors can opt out, at which point that executive and those experts will force insurance companies to step in and cover those services for “free”. Though those insurance companies can, and will, raise premiums to offset the added cost (provided they get another okay from those experts and that executive), they will not be in danger of shrinking their client pool by doing so. Because it will be illegal not to buy their product.

[Moliere]

My favorite part of this whole thing is Obama's continued rhetoric that the pills are "free". Yeah, good one Mr. President.

[Moliere]

If it were a problem that health insurance costs too much, a good way to make the problem even worse would be to require insurance companies to provide all sort of non-essential "health" benefits at no cost to the insured. In better words:

There is some evidence that free contraception actually reduces the cost of health care by helping to eliminate unwanted pregnancies and some health benefits that are achieved through use of the pill. I understand your point from an ultra-microeconomic standpoint, but I think there is probably more to it when you factor in other items.

[Goatnapper'96]

If it were a problem that health insurance costs too much, a good way to make the problem even worse would be to require insurance companies to provide all sort of non-essential "health" benefits at no cost to the insured. In better words:

One of the fundamental drivers of our health insurance/health care inflation is that the consumer is too far removed from health care costs. Health insurance has evolved into prepaid health care. Insurance should not pay for contraceptives, they should be budgeted for and paid for. Insurance should pay for appendectomies and such.

But Republicans have very little right to complain. They were in charge for years and did nothing about the growing problem. It is unfortunate that they allowed Democrats the opportunity to address the problem because they did what Democrats do: use a crisis/opportunity to generate another entitlement. Democrats were far more interested in increasing health insurance coverage, not entirely an unworthy pursuit, than in decreasing the costs of health care.

This debate about religious rights misses the mark, IMO. This is not an issue that should be covered under the concept of insurance and the entire ordeal demonstrates why Americans continue to pay, or collectively borrow from China, so much for health care.

[Pelado]

One of the fundamental drivers of our health insurance/health care inflation is that the consumer is too far removed from health care costs.

Absolutely. The closer the consumer is to the cost, the lower the costs will be. The more removed, the faster the costs escalate.

[beefytee]

One of the fundamental drivers of our health insurance/health care inflation is that the consumer is too far removed from health care costs. Health insurance has evolved into prepaid health care. Insurance should not pay for contraceptives, they should be budgeted for and paid for. Insurance should pay for appendectomies and such.

But Republicans have very little right to complain. They were in charge for years and did nothing about the growing problem. It is unfortunate that they allowed Democrats the opportunity to address the problem because they did what Democrats do: use a crisis/opportunity to generate another entitlement. Democrats were far more interested in increasing health insurance coverage, not entirely an unworthy pursuit, than in decreasing the costs of health care.

This debate about religious rights misses the mark, IMO. This is not an issue that should be covered under the concept of insurance and the entire ordeal demonstrates why Americans continue to pay, or collectively borrow from China, so much for health care.

You are probably one of those guys who doesn't think that oil changes should be covered by auto insurance.

[Jacob]

There is some evidence that free contraception actually reduces the cost of health care by helping to eliminate unwanted pregnancies and some health benefits that are achieved through use of the pill. I understand your point from an ultra-microeconomic standpoint, but I think there is probably more to it when you factor in other items.

I don't doubt there is some such evidence, but I'd bet it is far from conclusive. This is what Obama care is all about. Lets give everyone free mammograms and colonoscopies. The idea is that early detection will save costs. But in fact, all the extra cost screening the people who are not at risk costs more than treating the people who didn't get early detection. I bet we'd find a similar result with contraceptives. How much more likely is a woman to both obtain birth control and use it properly (as prescribed) if she she's already paid for it as part of her policy compared to if she has to pay a $20 copay? Is a woman much more likely to get the OTC morning after pill at the drug store if she processes it through her insurance compared to if she had to pay over the counter? Is sterilization a big women's health concern that will be resolved if it is prepaid in the insurance premium?
I'd suspect that the responsible people who want these coverages will take advantage of their new prepaid nature and the less responsible to didn't take contraceptives or didn't take them correctly will continue to get pregnant and seek abortions or abortifacients. Will overall costs be reduced? Unlikely? Will women's health be improved? Maybe to the slightest degree.