On birth control, GOP shoots itself in the foot

[vicupstate]

We should be able to buy health insurance individually with the same tax break our employer gets when we go thru them, or just do away with the employer tax break.   Also we should be able to purchase plans across state lines and not have to purchase coverage we don't want or need.

I would agree but since both parties are beholden to the Insurance industry, it unfortunately will never happen.

[Garden guy]

Let's face it the President set the Republicans up with this one they took the bait and now there will be a democratic house as well as the senate and chief executive.

Then finally we can start repairing the aweful damage caused by the republicans over the past 10 years.

[Gonzo]

So if you employer is a Jehovah's Witness, your health insurance shouldn't have to cover blood transfusions?  If your employer is a Muslim your insurance shouldn't cover the pig valve for your ailing heart?

We are talking about employers here, not churches.  If they object so much they can just stop paying for their employees health insurance and raise their salaries so that the employees can buy their own.

There are lots and lots of mandated coverages in health insurance policies; most from the State level, but some from the Federal level.

DW, in answer to your questions, government should not be telling employers what they must include, period. Health insurance is not a right, it is a fringe benefit. Always has been. So, for the government to step in and say you must include this or you must cover that, is an overreach of their power.

When I worked as a contractor, I supplied my own insurance and I chose what I wanted covered. If an employee does not like the coverage an employer provides, it is that employees right to ff ind another employer who does cover the things he or she wants.

In the overall picture, and within the bounds of this post, your examples fail the litmus. But, to be fair, so do mine. Because if my employer doesn't cover my allergy medicine and another does, I have the right to move on. If you want an employer that covers birth control and abortion services, do not work for the Catholic church. Kind of a simple solution...

Only a Republican would call Health Insurance a fringe benefit. (That's how you feel about health care too, I'm sure.) If you  can't afford coverage you want people to just do without.  You guys don't give a damn if people die or not. God it makes me sick. I'm so glad for you that you are not in need. Because your group would let you die in street and probably laugh about it.

Health insurance is not a right. It is a perk. Always has been. If it were not a perk, your employer would not pay a portion of it. Health insurance actually became legally part of the wages workers could nogotiate for as illustrated in the following quote:

Under the 1942 Stabilization Act, Congress limited the wage increases that could be offered by firms, but permitted the adoption of employee insurance plans. In this way, health benefit packages offered one means of securing workers. In the 1940s, two major rulings also reinforced the foundation of the employer-provided health insurance system. First, in 1945 the War Labor Board ruled that employers could not modify or cancel group insurance plans during the contract period. Then, in 1949, the National Labor Relations Board ruled in a dispute between the Inland Steel Co. and the United Steelworkers Union that the term "wages" included pension and insurance benefits. Therefore, when negotiating for wages, the union was allowed to negotiate benefit packages on behalf of workers as well. This ruling, affirmed later by the U.S. Supreme Court, further reinforced the employment-based system.

Before the insurance industry grew to its current mammoth proportions, health insurance was relatively unknown. If you were sick, you went to the local doctor, paid him (or her) -- with produce or lifestock if that's all you had -- and went on with your life. The key here is you -- not an insurance company -- paid for your own medical care. Indeed, the insurance companies did not even want to offer health insurance as indicated in the below quote:

According to The Insurance Monitor, "the opportunities for fraud [in health insurance] upset all statistical calculations.... Health and sickness are vague terms open to endless construction. Death is clearly defined, but to say what shall constitute such loss of health as will justify insurance compensation is no easy task" (July 1919, vol. 67 (7), p. 38).

The health insurance industry and overly liberal social policies have created the current climate of medical costs that are spiraling out of control. Take a look at a detailed hospital bill, you will see outrageous charges. How does $10 for a single dose of Tylenol strike you? Hospitals charge it because they know the insurance company will pay it and because they have to cover the cost of carrying so many people who will not pay their medical bills. Outrageous prices for medical services lead to skyrocketing insurance premiums. Where does it end?

In your plea to save the poor and under-insured, where do you draw a line? Should everybody be able to get health care for any ailment at any time and at any medical facility? Who will pay for the services rendered in this manner? Will you? Are you satisfied with ever increasing health care costs due to the huge number of people who burden the system without ever paying for it? Why are you and I responsible for those who refuse to work, act irresponsibly in order to obtain welfare benefits, and needlessly burden the system?

If you can answer those questions I will be satisfied. But, I will wager that you cannot (or will not).

Take into account that I am not referring to those who are truly in need. There are those who require special care because of things that have happened to them through no fault of their own. Taking care of those people -- those who are not scamming the system -- is and should be the responsibility of society. Those who are taking advantage of the system are not.

Reference: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/thomasson.insurance.health.us

[FayeforCure]

Gonzo, the Republican Health Care Plan is to Don't get Sick, and if you do get sick, Die Quickly.

Don't be a burden on the fittest, in Darwin's survival of the fittest (THAT is the the Republican motto: You're On Your Own...........YOYO)

[FayeforCure]

So if you employer is a Jehovah's Witness, your health insurance shouldn't have to cover blood transfusions?  If your employer is a Muslim your insurance shouldn't cover the pig valve for your ailing heart?

We are talking about employers here, not churches.  If they object so much they can just stop paying for their employees health insurance and raise their salaries so that the employees can buy their own.

There are lots and lots of mandated coverages in health insurance policies; most from the State level, but some from the Federal level.

DW, in answer to your questions, government should not be telling employers what they must include, period. Health insurance is not a right, it is a fringe benefit. Always has been. So, for the government to step in and say you must include this or you must cover that, is an overreach of their power.

When I worked as a contractor, I supplied my own insurance and I chose what I wanted covered. If an employee does not like the coverage an employer provides, it is that employees right to ff ind another employer who does cover the things he or she wants.

In the overall picture, and within the bounds of this post, your examples fail the litmus. But, to be fair, so do mine. Because if my employer doesn't cover my allergy medicine and another does, I have the right to move on. If you want an employer that covers birth control and abortion services, do not work for the Catholic church. Kind of a simple solution...

Only a Republican would call Health Insurance a fringe benefit. (That's how you feel about health care too, I'm sure.) If you  can't afford coverage you want people to just do without.  You guys don't give a damn if people die or not. God it makes me sick. I'm so glad for you that you are not in need. Because your group would let you die in street and probably laugh about it.

Health insurance is not a right. It is a perk. Always has been. If it were not a perk, your employer would not pay a portion of it. Health insurance actually became legally part of the wages workers could nogotiate for as illustrated in the following quote:

Under the 1942 Stabilization Act, Congress limited the wage increases that could be offered by firms, but permitted the adoption of employee insurance plans. In this way, health benefit packages offered one means of securing workers. In the 1940s, two major rulings also reinforced the foundation of the employer-provided health insurance system. First, in 1945 the War Labor Board ruled that employers could not modify or cancel group insurance plans during the contract period. Then, in 1949, the National Labor Relations Board ruled in a dispute between the Inland Steel Co. and the United Steelworkers Union that the term "wages" included pension and insurance benefits. Therefore, when negotiating for wages, the union was allowed to negotiate benefit packages on behalf of workers as well. This ruling, affirmed later by the U.S. Supreme Court, further reinforced the employment-based system.

Before the insurance industry grew to its current mammoth proportions, health insurance was relatively unknown. If you were sick, you went to the local doctor, paid him (or her) -- with produce or lifestock if that's all you had -- and went on with your life. The key here is you -- not an insurance company -- paid for your own medical care. Indeed, the insurance companies did not even want to offer health insurance as indicated in the below quote:

According to The Insurance Monitor, "the opportunities for fraud [in health insurance] upset all statistical calculations.... Health and sickness are vague terms open to endless construction. Death is clearly defined, but to say what shall constitute such loss of health as will justify insurance compensation is no easy task" (July 1919, vol. 67 (7), p. 38).

In your plea to save the poor and under-insured, where do you draw a line? Should everybody be able to get health care for any ailment at any time and at any medical facility? Who will pay for the services rendered in this manner? Will you? Are you satisfied with ever increasing health care costs due to the huge number of people who burden the system without ever paying for it? Why are you and I responsible for those who refuse to work, act irresponsibly in order to obtain welfare benefits, and needlessly burden the system?

It's all been figured in other western nations......no need to reinvent the wheel. But, I'm sure you want to keep the complex patch work of health insurance in the US that leaves 50 million uninsured and another 50 million underinsured...........because why bother with a simpler, better system such as the ones in western Europe where everyone is covered.

[mtraininjax]

Faye - Everyone is covered in Europe? Really, is Europe where you want to take this thread? With Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy all teetering on default of their governmental debt, paid for through the great socialistic views? Countries vowing to destroy the euro as their default currency?

Do you really want to go there?

[Dog Walker]

All of the countries you just named have better health care outcomes by all metrics and lower health care cost than we do in the US.  Healthcare isn't what gave them their current problems.

By any measure the most "socialist" of the European countries, the Scandinavian ones are doing just fine economically and about every other way.  Read the reports about the Finnish school system sometime.

[RiversideLoki]

Faye - Everyone is covered in Europe? Really, is Europe where you want to take this thread? With Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy all teetering on default of their governmental debt, paid for through the great socialistic views? Countries vowing to destroy the euro as their default currency?

Do you really want to go there?

Yeah, baby! Because we totally wouldn't want to end up like some "socialist" European style country!

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index

111 countries and territories were included in the 2005 Quality of Life Index.[1]
Rank    Country or territory    Quality of Life Score
(out of 10)
1     Ireland    8.333
2     Switzerland    8.068
3     Norway    8.051
4     Luxembourg    8.015
5     Sweden    7.937
6     Australia    7.925
7     Iceland    7.911
8     Italy    7.810
9     Denmark    7.797
10     Spain    7.727
11     Singapore    7.719
12     Finland    7.618
13     United States    7.615
14     Canada    7.599
15     New Zealand    7.436
16     Netherlands    7.433
17     Japan    7.392
18     Hong Kong    7.347
19     Portugal    7.307
20     Austria    7.268

Legend: "Socialist" Strongholds LOL U JELLY?

2009 Happy Planet Index

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index

Rank    Country    HPI
1     Costa Rica    76.1
2     Dominican Republic    71.8
3     Jamaica    70.1
4     Guatemala    68.4
5     Vietnam    66.5
6     Colombia    66.1
7     Cuba    65.7
8     El Salvador    61.5
9     Brazil    61.0
10     Honduras    61.0
11     Nicaragua    60.5
12     Egypt    60.3
13     Saudi Arabia    59.7
14     Philippines    59.0
15     Argentina    59.0
16     Indonesia    58.9
17     Bhutan    58.5
18     Panama    57.4
19     Laos    57.3
20     China    57.1
21     Morocco    56.8
22     Sri Lanka    56.5
23     Mexico    55.6
24     Pakistan    55.6
25     Ecuador    55.5
26     Jordan    54.6
27     Belize    54.5
28     Peru    54.4
29     Tunisia    54.3
30     Trinidad and Tobago    54.2
31     Bangladesh    54.1
32     Moldova    54.1
33     Malaysia    54.0
34     Tajikistan    53.5
35     India    53.0
36     Venezuela    52.5
37     Nepal    51.9
38     Syria    51.3
39     Burma    51.2
40     Algeria    51.2
41     Thailand    50.9
42     Haiti    50.8
43     Netherlands    50.6
44     Malta    50.4
45     Uzbekistan    50.1
46     Chile    49.7
47     Bolivia    49.3
48     Armenia    48.3
49     Singapore    48.2
50     Yemen    48.1
51     Germany    48.1
52     Switzerland    48.1
53     Sweden    48.0
54     Albania    47.9
55     Paraguay    47.8
56     Palestinian Authority    47.7
57     Austria    47.7
58     Serbia    47.6
59     Finland    47.2
60     Croatia    47.2
61     Kyrgyzstan    47.1
62     Cyprus    46.2
63     Guyana    45.6
64     Belgium    45.4
65     Bosnia and Herzegovina    45.0
66     Slovenia    44.5
67     Israel    44.5
68     South Korea    44.4
69     Italy    44.0
70     Romania    43.9
71     France    43.9
72     Georgia    43.6
73     Slovakia    43.5
74     United Kingdom    43.3
75     Japan    43.3
76     Spain    43.2
77     Poland    42.8
78     Ireland    42.6
79     Iraq    42.6
80     Cambodia    42.3
81     Iran    42.1
82     Bulgaria    42.0
83     Turkey    41.7
84     Hong Kong    41.6
85     Azerbaijan    41.2
86     Lithuania    40.9
87     Djibouti    40.4
88     Norway    40.4
89     Canada    39.4
90     Hungary    38.9
91     Kazakhstan    38.5
92     Czech Republic    38.3
93     Mauritania    38.2
94     Iceland    38.1
95     Ukraine    38.1
96     Senegal    38.0
97     Greece    37.6
98     Portugal    37.5
99     Uruguay    37.2
100     Ghana    37.1
101     Latvia    36.7
102     Australia    36.6
103     New Zealand    36.2
104     Belarus    35.7
105     Denmark    35.5
106     Mongolia    35.0
107     Malawi    34.5
108     Russia    34.5
109     Chad    34.3
110     Lebanon    33.6
111     Macedonia    32.7
112     Republic of the Congo    32.4
113     Madagascar    31.5
114     United States    30.7
115     Nigeria    30.3

[FayeforCure]

I just love it........the republican response is soooo predictable.

You talk about Europe and the Pavlov response as dictated by Fox News (yes, I do sometimes flip trough Fox news when I'm channel surfing), is an immediate referral to Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Italy.

Never mind the very prosperous western European and Scandinavian countries...........because we wouldn't want to be pointing to nations that really care about We, The People, as the US  once professed to do.

Or nations that have an even more thriving entrepreneurial environment than the US, now would we?

No, we have to put our blinders on and vehemently continue to pretend that the US is the ONLY thriving Capitalistic nation. To do this we have to call successful Western European nations the dreaded "socialistic" word, and ignore that they have thriving capitalistic economies.

Even China has a thriving capitalistic economy, as has Brazil and all the other BRICS countries.

America the exceptional is quickly declining to the bottom of the heap among advanced nations, but Republicans want to stay in denial and are helped to do so with the Faux News propaganda.