On birth control, GOP shoots itself in the foot

[FayeforCure]

On birth control, GOP shoots itself in the foot

On birth control GOP takes on losing issue


By Carl Hiaasen

CHiaasen@MiamiHerald.com


In their unflagging efforts to distance themselves from mainstream America, Republican leaders have gleefully seized upon a social issue that’s guaranteed to backfire in November:

Birth control.

If you’re mystified, you’re not alone. Ignoring years of public-opinion polls, the GOP is boldly marching backwards into the 1960s to question whether contraception is a legitimate health-care benefit.

The target, as always, is President Obama. He issued an executive mandate requiring that free birth control be included in health plans provided to employees of schools, charities and hospitals connected to religiously affiliated institutions.

Although the mandate excludes churches, Roman Catholic bishops are in a huff, saying the contraception provision violates the First Amendment and “freedom of religion.”

Never mind that Obama softened the rule so that the insurance companies, not the employers, will pay for the coverage. Never mind that many employees served by these healthcare plans don’t share the same religion as the institute for whom they work.

Republican strategists see the controversy as another opportunity to bash Obama’s healthcare reforms, and also to rile up white Christian evangelicals who don’t like the president anyway.

As political miscalculations go, this one could be epic. If you’re looking for a sure way to galvanize female voters against your own party, attack birth control.

Whom does the administration’s mandate help? Teachers, secretaries, nurses, lab techs â€" working women who can’t afford, or don’t choose, to get pregnant.

Yet to hear the yowls of outrage, you’d think these hospitals and schools were being ordered to round up their workers and force-feed them birth-control pills against their will..........



Obviously, limiting the availability of birth control is an unpopular idea in this country. That it’s getting traction in Congress illustrates how completely the Republican Party has been carjacked by its bug-eyed, right-wing fringe.

Even as national women’s groups mobilize to support the administration, the GOP presidential candidates are piping up to denounce the birth-control benefit as a sinister plot against religion. Among the alarmed is Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts uttered not a whisper of objection to a state law that was virtually identical to the president’s mandate.

You can be certain that the fall election won’t hinge on social issues that were settled in the minds of voters decades ago. If the Republicans stay on this sorry, dead-end path, Obama’s task is clear:

Ice the champagne.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/18/v-fullstory/2647452/on-birth-control-gop-shoots-self.html#storylink=fbuser#storylink=cpy

[JeffreyS]

I could not agree with this article more.  It won't just galvanize female voters it will keep responsible Republicans from voting at all. 

[Gonzo]

Never mind that Obama softened the rule so that the insurance companies, not the employers, will pay for the coverage. Never mind that many employees served by these healthcare plans don’t share the same religion as the institute for whom they work.

As someone on a different thread said earlier, bull hockey! In my Republican point of view, the president got this absolutley wrong when he first tried to force those opposed to this for religious reasons to include contraception and abortion services in mandatory health insurance. But, to say he softened it and fixed it by putting the onus on the insurance company is tantamount to saying, "I didn't put the bullet in the gun, therefore I could not be responsible for killing someone with it." Or, for a Jewish person to say, "I just bought the ham sandwich, I didn't make it, so how can it be a problem?"

The Democrats are playing games with this topic plain and simple. They are pulling at strings that they think will rile people up the most. For a group of people who are supposedly tolerant -- is that not the definition of liberal? -- you sure seem to take issue with folks who believe different than you.

I have said it before and I will say it again, if you cannot dig $10 a month out of your pocket to purchase the pill or a box of condoms, you probably should not be having sex.

But, if you want to go on and say the pill should be free, then why are my allergy pills not free? Are my allergies legitimate health issues? If I have an attack, I am susceptible to getting a sinus infection, that sinus infection could turn into bronchitis, bronchitis cold turn into pneumonia, and that could mean a lengthy hospital stay. On the other hand, if I have unprotected sex, I could inseminate a woman, that woman could become pregnant, the pregnancy will lead to medical expenses which could include a hospital stay. How is that different than my allergies? Why is it that you think your health issue is more important than mine? Pneumonia is potentially lethal.

Instead of spouting how this is a women's rights issue, how about you tell us exactly how it is a rights issue. And, while you are at it, explain how my allergies are not an issue of my right to be healthy.

[Dog Walker]

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.

[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...

[vicupstate]

If I had my way, employers/employment would not be involved with health insurance in the first place.   But it sounds like it is just making it easier to rook peole out of coverages and services to save a buck. The insurance companies already do plenty of that without giving the employer even more leeway to do the same.

[Dog Walker]

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...

So, Gonzo,  if you can't answer the argument, shift the terms of the debate to another subject  i.e. whether or not employers should be involved in health insurance.  10th grade trick.

Now you are arguing for a completely unregulated health insurance market?  Fat chance of that working.  You would soon find that buried in the bacteria font print on the back of the last page of your contract that the only thing covered was developing an in-grown toenail at the time of the full moon.

All the regulations on the insurance industry didn't come about for no reason, but from abuses by the industry.

[dougskiles]

If I had my way, employers/employment would not be involved with health insurance in the first place.   But it sounds like it is just making it easier to rook peole out of coverages and services to save a buck. The insurance companies already do plenty of that without giving the employer even more leeway to do the same.

I would like to see employers completely out of the insurance picture, too.  If the government wants to provide it as a form of welfare to its citizens, then that is what they should try to pass through legislation.  If the majority of the people in the US are for a government system, I won't like it, but I will live with it.

Employers are far too diverse a group for this to be administered fairly.  Sure, perhaps the mega-corporation can handle the cost with no problem.  Many small businesses (which everyone loves to say they are the champion of) have a very difficult time covering the cost.  They typically don't have HR departments who can allocate significant chunks of time researching the various plans and making sure they are getting the best deal.

[FayeforCure]

If I had my way, employers/employment would not be involved with health insurance in the first place.   But it sounds like it is just making it easier to rook peole out of coverages and services to save a buck. The insurance companies already do plenty of that without giving the employer even more leeway to do the same.

I would like to see employers completely out of the insurance picture, too.  If the government wants to provide it as a form of welfare to its citizens, then that is what they should try to pass through legislation.  If the majority of the people in the US are for a government system, I won't like it, but I will live with it.

Thank you...........we are already living with it as close to 60% of us already have government provided healthcare insurance:

Medicare for the elderly and disabled
Medicaid for the poor
Tricare for the military
Federal and state government workers insurance

I want it too since I don't fall in any of the above categories.

I want to buy into Medicare.

[Fallen Buckeye]

Saying that the debate over the HHS mandate is about access to contraception is akin to saying that the American revolution was fought over tea.

[JeffreyS]

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.

[kells904]

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.

Just now I pictured a dollar bill attached to a string...a really big, obvious string.

In other words, you're probably right.

[avonjax]

Never mind that Obama softened the rule so that the insurance companies, not the employers, will pay for the coverage. Never mind that many employees served by these healthcare plans don’t share the same religion as the institute for whom they work.

As someone on a different thread said earlier, bull hockey! In my Republican point of view, the president got this absolutley wrong when he first tried to force those opposed to this for religious reasons to include contraception and abortion services in mandatory health insurance. But, to say he softened it and fixed it by putting the onus on the insurance company is tantamount to saying, "I didn't put the bullet in the gun, therefore I could not be responsible for killing someone with it." Or, for a Jewish person to say, "I just bought the ham sandwich, I didn't make it, so how can it be a problem?"

The Democrats are playing games with this topic plain and simple. They are pulling at strings that they think will rile people up the most. For a group of people who are supposedly tolerant -- is that not the definition of liberal? -- you sure seem to take issue with folks who believe different than you.

I have said it before and I will say it again, if you cannot dig $10 a month out of your pocket to purchase the pill or a box of condoms, you probably should not be having sex.

But, if you want to go on and say the pill should be free, then why are my allergy pills not free? Are my allergies legitimate health issues? If I have an attack, I am susceptible to getting a sinus infection, that sinus infection could turn into bronchitis, bronchitis cold turn into pneumonia, and that could mean a lengthy hospital stay. On the other hand, if I have unprotected sex, I could inseminate a woman, that woman could become pregnant, the pregnancy will lead to medical expenses which could include a hospital stay. How is that different than my allergies? Why is it that you think your health issue is more important than mine? Pneumonia is potentially lethal.

Instead of spouting how this is a women's rights issue, how about you tell us exactly how it is a rights issue. And, while you are at it, explain how my allergies are not an issue of my right to be healthy.

Wow typical Republican response. I don't recall abortion as part of the equation either. But what does that matter. To promote your side you would say anything.

[avonjax]

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.

[urbanlibertarian]

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.