Domino's Pizza founder sues federal government over mandated contraception coverage

Haggis said:

Does this same logic hold for government plans? For example, Medicare does not pay for dental work. Should the government get to decide who gets to keep their teeth and who doesn't?

Click to expand...

Of course the same rules should apply to government (publicly funded) plans and private plans. What in my post made you think I would think there should be a double standard?

ETA: To clarify: Medicare doesn't cover dental now. Medicare should cover dental. It should cover eye care and preventative care, too. Obviously.

But if the problem is that employers don't want to cover things they (a) can't afford or don't want to pay for or (b) don't personally approve of, then the easiest solution to the problem of employers imposing such limitations on their employees is to end employment-based health insurance. A single payer, public system would make coverage follow the individual, and would create a different accountability issue and set of solutions, having nothing to do with the vagaries of personal belief among business owners.

Therefore I, as an employee, would have just one provider to argue with over what should be covered, instead of having to have the same fight over and over every time I change jobs.

Roger J Carlson said:

You take it wrongly. My point is that if the federal government feels so strongly about birth control, it should push for direct implementation of it rather than forcing individual businesses to provide it even if it violates their religious principles.

Click to expand...

Torgo said:

If the federal government feels so strongly about healthcare, it should push for implementation of a single-payer national healthcare system that is free at the point of delivery; and free birth control ought to be part of that. (What you've actually got is probably the best political compromise possible under the circumstances, but it is going to throw up some problems.)

Click to expand...

With a single payer system the government only controls the health care industry. The way it is now, government also controls the health INSURANCE industry, as well as controlling how all employers provide health insurance to employees. The present system looks like a win for the government.
</cynic>

RichardGarfinkle said:

No one's argued against dental care on moral grounds as far as I know.

There are two different intertwined arguments:

1. Should the government mandate health care coverage from employers at all.

2. If employer health care coverage is mandated, should an employer be able to opt out of covering particular procedures on moral grounds.

Click to expand...

Roger J Carlson said:

Everyone believes the medical procedure or medication they need is necessary, and yet insurance providers and employers (by choosing plans) routinely decide that many of them are not.

Click to expand...

I wonder if you really, literally mean what you wrote. Insurance providers don't make medical decisions - they make financial decisions (actually the decisions, theoretically, are already made in the insurance policy) - they either pay for or don't pay for specific medical procedures.

And whether it's birth control pills, vasectomies, condoms or aspirin, if an insurance company doesn't pay for it, that doesn't prevent someone from getting the funds elsewhere to pay for it.

Insurance companies have become "health care funders" - people expect everything to be "paid for" out of the risk pool of money. Things would be better if deductibles were higher, so that "ordinary" problems would more often be paid for by the person who receives treatment. This would lead to "price shopping" doctors and hospitals, and put pressure on the providers to lower the cost of health care services.

That argument would make sense if the people expecting everything to be covered were not (a) being told it's all covered by the insurers trying to get them to buy policies and (b) paying for said services covered by said policies. I don't see how it's unreasonable to expect to get for one's money the level of service advertised by the provider.

muravyets said:

Of course the same rules should apply to government (publicly funded) plans and private plans. What in my post made you think I would think there should be a double standard?

Click to expand...

I never suggested you would support a double standard. I asked if you'd support a double standard.

I was going back to this comment:

Employers should not get to decide what quality of life their employees will have.

Click to expand...

Obviously, I don't think the government should either. So it seems as though we agree.

KTC said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by willietheshakes
I think I have to quit the internet - it's a world far too full of stupid for me to endure.

Domino's Pizza founder sues federal government over mandatory contraceptive coverage...

Glad I support my local, indie pizza place.




Oh my sweet fuck. That is all

Click to expand...

I still don't know if I'm following the outrage. Is it a Creationist-as-Federal-Minister-of-Science-and-Technology kind of complaint? Like a an extreme religion kind of thing?

(http://www.thealbatross.ca/23323/ca...n-accuses-opponent-of-autoerotic-asphyxiation)

Or is it because he's sue-happy?

I don't know. I support his right to sue about it. It can be seen as a Constitutional issue.

eta: I think he'll lose, btw, and I'll be glad of that.

muravyets said:

Of course the same rules should apply to government (publicly funded) plans and private plans..

Click to expand...

Indeed. Hey, if I am offered a pill and no-pill plan and I choose one or the other, who cares. If my insurer decides the pill is too expensive to cover, and I can choose another insurer, who cares about that.

What we are talking about here is I am forced to get insurance from my employer and only from my employer and only from the insurer they have a cozy deal with, and my employers also want to choose the plan so it matches their religious faith.

Why is my employer's right to choose according to their faith more important than *my* right to choose according to my faith, when to comes to *my* health care? That's insane.

Haggis said:

I never suggested you would support a double standard. I asked if you'd support a double standard.

Click to expand...

Oh, that's so adorable. Irritating, but adorable.

I was going back to this comment:

Obviously, I don't think the government should either. So it seems as though we agree.

Click to expand...

Don't assume too much. I won't be back-doored into common ground with people who parse their words so cutely. When I'm sure we're both being straightforward, I'll let you know that I agree with you.

Now to be clear, I say that the norm for health insurance should be to cover all medical and health maintenance costs, and that no one should get to deny someone else coverage because of personal prejudice.

Since we were talking about employers, I said that about employers. But "the norm for health insurance" covers what is provided, not how it is paid for, so obviously that norm should apply both to public and private plans.

But of course, all that is utterly beside the point I was making, which was specifically that, if employers have a problem paying for employee insurance, then they should be relieved of that burden. Period. No implied double standards, no derailments, no "oh, let me assure everyone here that I don't foolishly trust the government more than I should." Thanks, but I said what I said and nothing more.

ETA: I should mention that, if the above reads as testy, it's because I found the post I was responding to condescending.

muravyets said:

Oh, that's so adorable. Irritating, but adorable.

Click to expand...

Seriously? And you accuse me of being condescending?

muravyets said:

Don't assume too much. I won't be back-doored into common ground with people who parse their words so cutely. When I'm sure we're both being straightforward, I'll let you know that I agree with you.

Click to expand...

Well then perhaps you ought to read what I actually wrote rather than what you assumed I wrote. My words are still there. Feel free. So are yours. I was trying to be friendly, not cute. Apparently you're not interested in friendly. Your call, and I'm fine with that.

muravyets said:

Now to be clear, I say that the norm for health insurance should be to cover all medical and health maintenance costs, and that no one should get to deny someone else coverage because of personal prejudice.

Since we were talking about employers, I said that about employers. But "the norm for health insurance" covers what is provided, not how it is paid for, so obviously that norm should apply both to public and private plans.

Click to expand...

That's what I heard (read) you say. That's what I was agreeing with--that the norm should apply to both public and private. But apparently you're no longer comfortable agreeing with what you agreed with before.

muravyets said:

But of course, all that is utterly beside the point I was making, which was specifically that, if employers have a problem paying for employee insurance, then they should be relieved of that burden. Period. No implied double standards, no derailments, no "oh, let me assure everyone here that I don't foolishly trust the government more than I should." Thanks, but I said what I said and nothing more.

Click to expand...

Sure. I understand the point you were making. But, you know, I get to make my own points here too. You don't get to control the discussion any more than I or any other member does.

muravyets said:

ETA: I should mention that, if the above reads as testy, it's because I found the post I was responding to condescending.

Click to expand...

Uh-huh.

*rolls eyes*

Roger J Carlson said:

Everyone believes the medical procedure or medication they need is necessary, and yet insurance providers and employers (by choosing plans) routinely decide that many of them are not.

Click to expand...

They decide that they do not want to pay for it. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually necessary.

Celia Cyanide said:

They decide that they do not want to pay for it. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually necessary.

Click to expand...

They decide they can stop me from paying for it through the only insurance scheme available to me. Whilst also suggesting they think I am an immoral person.

A.k.a. 'you can have your pill, slut. But pay ten times as much for it because we have the right to do that, just to make a point.'

If insurance slut-shaming is allowed I guess equal rights for moralists will apply:

--No plan coverage for prenatal care if your employer thinks the world is already over-populated, or disapproves of your interracial marriage.
--No vaccinations if your employer thinks they are a government scheme to poison people
--No blood transfusions if your employer is Closed Brethren
--No spousal coverage for second marriages or children born out of wedlock because your boss is Catholic

Because... why not? These are also sincere religious beliefs. You can have your bastard child, you just have to pay for it yourself.

etc.

Roger J Carlson said:

There are many legal medical procedures and medications that are not paid for by insurance. The employer denies funding all the time by choosing which plans they provide.

Click to expand...

Chrissy said:

Yeah, based on medical necessity. But birth control (in my very strong opinion--in the VAST MAJORITY of people's opinions) is necessary. (Side note: I would argue that maybe Viagra could be considered necessary too, psychologically or something.)

Click to expand...

Celia Cyanide said:

They decide that they do not want to pay for it. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually necessary.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, by necessary, I meant "not optional." For example, in a typical insurance plan, insulin would be covered for a diabetic.

I would argue that birth control is "not optional" for most women.

Plastic surgery is optional if you'd like a face lift; it's not optional if you've been in a terrible accident and you need reconstructive surgery.

At least, that's how it was the last time I actually had health insurance.


And +1 to veinglory's post.