Men in Black

[paft.livejournal.com]

Here is a picture from today's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing about the Obama administration's birth control mandate:



The first row are the allowed witnesses.

All those people a couple rows behind them? Well... those witnesses just don't fit in.

That's why most of the Democratic women on the committee walked out of the room.

Just now, Oklahoma GOP representative Jim Lankford implied that these men in black were being "berated" by the committee. In fact, they've mostly been getting strokes just short of full-body massages from most of the remaining committee members. This hearing is such a transparent and over-the-top, right wing extremist attack on the administration (one Representative invoked those dastardly laws against smoking in public buildings as a sign of the slippery slope the administration has set up) that clips from it should be used by Democrats in the upcoming election.

I cannot imagine any reasonable and honest person watching this hearing and not being appalled.


Partially crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

*

Comments

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

Yes... "wages earned" I guess that that's some sort of magic mantra that breaks whatever evil spell manages to transmit sin via the medium of health care tranactions?

Let us explore this Transitive Property of Sin.

Organization performs action = Sin is attached!
Insurance company performs action = Sin is attached!
Employee performs act = Whoopee! No Sin!

Yet in all three cases (assuming a free labor market) the monetary outlay for the employer is the same.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's a difference in responsibility.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

A) Organization buys stuff = Organization is Responsible!
B) Insurance company buys stuff = Organization is Responsible!
C) Employee buys stuff = Organization is not Responsible!

Still don't get it. If 'C' 'clears' the organization, why not 'B'? If B fails to clear the organization, why does C not also fail? It's not the movement of money... that's theoretically the same in all three.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Because in B, the employer, who pays most/all of the insurance, is still responsible for what is passed along. Once the money leaves the hands in the form of wages, they're no longer responsible for what happens in that way.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> Because in B, the employer, who pays most/all of the insurance, is still
> responsible for what is passed along.

Why? It can only be because of the presumption that the predicted rise in insurance fees will be automatically passed along by the insurance vendor. It is seen as mechanistic and automatic, because merchants and businessmen are not 'responsible' for pricing shift. We pretend they have no agency.

> Once the money leaves the hands in the form of wages, they're no longer responsible
> for what happens in that way.

Only if the increase in wages necessary to offset the value of the contraception inclusion is NOT seen as mechanistic and automatic. Otherwise attaching special "responsibility changing" super powers to one transaction (employer to employee) as opposed to another (employer to insurance vendor) is magical thinking.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Why? It can only be because of the presumption that the predicted rise in insurance fees will be automatically passed along by the insurance vendor. It is seen as mechanistic and automatic, because merchants and businessmen are not 'responsible' for pricing shift. We pretend they have no agency.

It's the concept that, if they're paying for a service, they're paying for everything that's being offered. It's sort of like the Planned Parenthood/abortions thing - yeah, you can earmark your donations for non-abortion stuff, but you're primarily freeing up cash for them to provide other services that include abortion. It's still funding it, just not as directly.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Is the assumption then that these religious institutions work with healthcare providers that don't offer ANYONE birth control?

As you said, any money in the pot results in the overall work a company does. So if, for example, HIP provides birth control under some plans, is the church sinning for assisting their company even if their plans do not provide birth control?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Is the assumption then that these religious institutions work with healthcare providers that don't offer ANYONE birth control?

Not at all. I know where you're going with this.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

So why is it okay for the religious institution to get insurance from a company who offers plans that covers birth control (let alone abortion!) up until the point where their employees can get it, if we use the argument that you used about Planned Parenthood?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Mainly because it's not really the same. You buy for your group, not for everyone involved with the company.

It would be like not shopping at WalMart because they sell birth control. Your purchasing of a pair of pants there doesn't impact that business. Compare that to Planned Parenthood, who relies overwhelmingly on donations and thus needs to segregate their money differently.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

But that's not how insurance companies work: they're not blocking off every individual group plan into their own little niche. All the money, as a whole, goes into a collective pool that they use to pay for procedures and to make profits.

While you may be buying just for your group, the money goes toward funding procedures for everyone that gets covered by the company, including the procedures that you don't like for moral grounds. It's not like a religious institution can say "have the money we pay not go toward funding anyone's abortion," and even if they did the same logic you're using about Planned Parenthood would take place: where just because that specific money doesn't go there, by giving any money you enable them to be able to safely allocate the funds anyway.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

But that's not how insurance companies work: they're not blocking off every individual group plan into their own little niche. All the money, as a whole, goes into a collective pool that they use to pay for procedures and to make profits.

Yes and no. You pay a company who makes a profit over offering many plans to many groups, yes. That company may offer different services to different groups. All of that is true, but you're not funding someone else's coverage, only your group's.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

All of that is true, but you're not funding someone else's coverage, only your group's.

Except that while you're just paying for your groups coverage, the money from those payments funds everyone's coverage, not just your specific group.

Along with that, if the argument is that as long as they don't fund it for their group then all is well, what is the problem with the insurance company going directly to women for free birth control coverage without the involvement of the organization that is buying the overall group coverage? Is the argument that insurance companies will tack on the cost somewhere else, thus having them pay for it in the end anyway?

And, if that is the argument, wouldn't that work with anything else in any other context? If an insurance company ends up having an extra administrative expense that comes from something you disagree with on a religious/moral level, then are you having your rights violated because the cost may be passed to you?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Except that while you're just paying for your groups coverage, the money from those payments funds everyone's coverage, not just your specific group.

And when you buy pants at Wal-Mart, you're paying for all of their profits, not just the profits on birth control.

I get what you're trying to do here, but it's not analogous.

what is the problem with the insurance company going directly to women for free birth control coverage without the involvement of the organization that is buying the overall group coverage?

Because the only reason that relationship exists is due to the payments and negotiations of the employer.

If an insurance company ends up having an extra administrative expense that comes from something you disagree with on a religious/moral level, then are you having your rights violated because the cost may be passed to you?

Yes, if the government is mandating it as such. You'll recall that the insurance mandate actually has a religious conscience exemption clause for groups like the Amish or Christian Scientists. There's no reason why that same exemption should not exist here.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

You'll recall that the insurance mandate actually has a religious conscience exemption clause for groups like the Amish or Christian Scientists. There's no reason why that same exemption should not exist here.

Because each Amish person is choosing to not get insurance for religious conscience reasons. That is different from this context, because a religious-run company is saying that individuals who may not even have the same religious beliefs are not allowed to get coverage for something, even when the institution itself is not involved in the process of providing that specific coverage, as it is a completely separate package from what they do want to provide.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yet it comes down to who is doing the purchasing, yet again. Just like the HCR exemption protects the purchaser from violating their religious beliefs when purchasing health insurance, so does an exemption to keep Catholic organizations from having to violate their religious beliefs when purchasing health insurance.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Yet it comes down to who is doing the purchasing, yet again.

So, you're okay with the insurance companies giving birth control coverage to someone who works for an institution, if it is done in a direct insurance company to individual person process and not without the authorization or acknowledgement of the company they work for?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

This would not be an issue if insurance was primarily an individual action rather than an employer-linked one, no.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

While insurance may not primarily be an individual action, in this case insurance companies are approaching people on an individual basis because their employer-linked plan does not cover something.

Not to mention that preventive car can keep costs on their end down and, in turn, increase their ability to make a profit.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

While insurance may not primarily be an individual action, in this case insurance companies are approaching people on an individual basis because their employer-linked plan does not cover something.

...except that they're approaching them because their employer, the ones paying for most - if not all - of the plan, have already contracted them.

Not to mention that preventive car can keep costs on their end down and, in turn, increase their ability to make a profit.

Maybe, maybe not. I linked to a CBO thing earlier that disputes that.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

...except that they're approaching them because their employer, the ones paying for most - if not all - of the plan, have already contracted them.

So? I'm not aware of any legal or contractual requirement banning insurance companies from contacting their clients to provide options their employers don't have an interest in covering.

I'm also not sure why anyone who supports free and open trade would support any kind of contractual agreement like that.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So? I'm not aware of any legal or contractual requirement banning insurance companies from contacting their clients to provide options their employers don't have an interest in covering.

But the issue is about who's paying for it, not who's doing the contact.

I'm also not sure why anyone who supports free and open trade would support any kind of contractual agreement like that.

It's because I support free and open trade that I oppose any sort of coverage mandate.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> It's still funding it, just not as directly.

By that logic any wages dispersed to an employee who uses contraception is indirectly paying for contraception.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Perhaps, but that's not traditionally how wages work. And, again, it puts the responsibility away from the Catholics and in the hands of those who have the money.

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

It will become 'traditionally how wages work', if and when contraception opponents can succeed in framing it so, opting, perhaps to make 'use of contraceptives' a firing offense for any who can be proven to do so, or make 'swearing not to use contraceptives' a contractual obligation of employment. This is not far fetched. The point is their general opposition to Birth control, and what power they have to express it, and compel compliance.

> it puts the responsibility away from the Catholics

Well, firstly, since so many Catholics use birth control, this statement is problematic. Lets say instead "Those who oppose birth control, ostensibly for reasons of Catholic Dogma". Too long I know, so lets pronoun it as "them".

The responsibility is ALREADY 'away' from 'them'. Each individual in any such insurance program is capable of exercising their own choice informed (or not) by religious dogma. Some may, some may not.

Attaching responsibility to the money flow in this way is a farce. The individual obtaining the service is responsible. They are the 'Sin circuit breaker'.

If you choose to continue to argue in this Transitive property of Sin via 3rd party removed purchases, whoever will you argue against Gun Shop owners NOT being responsible for the deaths caused by their product?