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

[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.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

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

The insurance company is covering it. An insurance company is not required to keep their financial expenses limited to just individual company pools. If they wanted to cover the costs of a high risk pool by taking funds from a low risk pool, they would be allowed to do that. There is nothing I am aware of that legally prevents an insurance company's left hand from financially knowing what the company's right hand is doing.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The insurance company is covering it.

And who is paying the insurance company?

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Every single client they have.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yes and no. I again refer you to the prior point (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1351189.html?thread=107573013#t107573013) last time this was raised.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

You'll also recall that I responded to it. Glad we remembered that part!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Which raises the question as to why you've gone back to this well.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Because you asked who pays for the coverage. It seems that because an employer has an insurance plan they provide an employee (which they pay for, either fully or in part), under your argument it's "wrong" for an insurance company to reach out to the employee to provide additional coverage outside of what the employer wants them to have.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's not about the insurance company.