Mr. Hanley, here's my two cents: you pleaded your case a while back and the blog owners and FPers declined your petition. At this point you're just being childish (especially the ridiculous 99 thing) -- this isn't your blog, and your opinion is not Truth.
I think Joe makes a good point. It's not "you must have this procedure done", it's "if you want an abortion, you must have this procedure done first". So if you're determined to find an analogue, a closer one would be sexual harassment -- "if you want that promotion, you have to have sex with me first".
Cool, so Tim can just sit around until you do the work of collecting some food and then takehis share from you. Not a bad deal. Unless you have a second proposal to account for that...
I think the flip side of this is (assuming that contraceptive coverage has a nonzero cost and that the employer is functionally passing the cost on to the employee one way or the other), why should a Catholic employee who objects to contraceptive use be forced to pay for that coverage just because she doesn't work for a Catholic employer?
Well, that came up in another thread, and i think it's a bit more complicated than that -- you'd have to determine how different levels of coverage affect usage among the target population (which, bear in mind, largely will not include low-income folks, since they're less likely to be in a job that includes health care). To what extent is price preventing people from using birth control, to what extent is birth control usage simplying delaying pregnancy rather than preventing it, how much would incidence of pregnancy go down given the increase in coverage, how much of the savings would the particular insurer expect to capture, etc. It's part of the field of medical economics, and health insurers have entire departments working on this stuff.
Ok, i saw that but assumed that the insurers would recoup that cost in the plans they sell to these institutions, even if the plan itself didn't technically have that coverage. If that's not allowed and the price tag to the institution doesn't include that cost then this shouldn't be a problem.
Insurers price plans based on coverage. If the plan offers full coverage for birth control, the price of the plan will go up accordingly. That delta is what my $200 figure above was.
If i've missed something and it's the insurers who have to eat the cost somehow, then you're right, this wouldn't be an issue.
Consider three possibilities:
1: employer must deduct $200 from each female employee's salary and give her the equivalent supply of birth control instead;
2: employer must deduct $200 from each female employee's salary and give her the equivalent supply of vouchers redeemable only for birth control.
3: employer can leave the $200 as cash compensation and has no control over how it is spent.
(note $200 was a wild guess, actual amount not important to argument)
I see more of a distinction between #3 and the other two than I do between #1 and #2.
But I do think that under this (reasonable) interpretation, it's the Catholic *employees* that should be upset, not the employers - they're being forced to buy birth control.
the employers aren’t paying for it–the employees are using part of their rightfully-earned compensation to acquire it.
Well, it's more like the employer is being told to give each employee, in lieu of the equivalent in wages, a pack of vouchers that can be redeemed for free birth control pills. And note that even the observant Catholic employees who oppose the use of birth control have to pay for them in this way (or at least the female employees of child-bearing age, depending on how the organization spreads the costs).
The man in the ditch is there through no fault of his own, so that stacks the deck a bit. Let's move from parable to fable and stack it on the other side -- what are the ant's duties to the grasshopper that winter? Is it acceptable for him to let the grasshopper bear the consequences of his own decisions?
Also worth mentioning that they're not going to be using off-the-shelf Google Translate -- it'll be specially trained for this content. Assuming that patents include a lot of boilerplate and customary language (and little room for personal style), it might even produce halfway-decent results.
Fair enough. I also wouldn't expect a massive sell-off, but I can easily imagine this factoring into their decisions about future development and maintenance.
Re #1, isn't there already a mechanism for conditionally approving prescriptions based on qualifying diagnoses? Not that it couldn't be abused, of course.
Re #2, can they be viewed as health care in a way that, say, bike helmets can't be?
The services provided by Catholic hospitals and religious schools in general are invaluable....It would be a loss to the nation if such institutions were to cease to exist.
So the question is, is that a reasonable price to pay, in your opinion? If the Catholic church decides to get out of the hospital business in the USA (or at least reduce its footprint) because of this mandate and the prospect of future similar regulations, is our society better off? I'm not saying that it is or isn't, but I think the point should be addressed.
Reminds me of Mr. Bergstrom's parting words to Lisa Simpson -- "That's the problem with being middle-class. Anybody who really cares will abandon you for those who need it more."
Well, whatever money you were living on hadalready been taxed when you got it. The difference in taxes between making $2x in year one and nothing in year two vs making $x both years would come down to tax brackets, the FICA cap, lost opportunity for deductions in year two, etc. -- could go either way.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Virginia Ultrasound Bill and the Moniker of Rape”
Mr. Hanley, here's my two cents: you pleaded your case a while back and the blog owners and FPers declined your petition. At this point you're just being childish (especially the ridiculous 99 thing) -- this isn't your blog, and your opinion is not Truth.
FWIW, IMHO, and all that.
"
I think Joe makes a good point. It's not "you must have this procedure done", it's "if you want an abortion, you must have this procedure done first". So if you're determined to find an analogue, a closer one would be sexual harassment -- "if you want that promotion, you have to have sex with me first".
On “Pondering Positive Rights”
Cool, so Tim can just sit around until you do the work of collecting some food and then takehis share from you. Not a bad deal. Unless you have a second proposal to account for that...
On “Contraception, Catholics, Compulsion, and Compelling Interests”
I think the flip side of this is (assuming that contraceptive coverage has a nonzero cost and that the employer is functionally passing the cost on to the employee one way or the other), why should a Catholic employee who objects to contraceptive use be forced to pay for that coverage just because she doesn't work for a Catholic employer?
"
FWIW, I'm not Catholic, just interested in religious freedom issues and inclined to be argumentative.
"
Well, that came up in another thread, and i think it's a bit more complicated than that -- you'd have to determine how different levels of coverage affect usage among the target population (which, bear in mind, largely will not include low-income folks, since they're less likely to be in a job that includes health care). To what extent is price preventing people from using birth control, to what extent is birth control usage simplying delaying pregnancy rather than preventing it, how much would incidence of pregnancy go down given the increase in coverage, how much of the savings would the particular insurer expect to capture, etc. It's part of the field of medical economics, and health insurers have entire departments working on this stuff.
"
Full disclosure is just a few $9.00 martinis away.
"
AFAIK vasectomy coverage isn't part of the new regs - dunno how catholic institutions have handled that coverage...
"
Ok, i saw that but assumed that the insurers would recoup that cost in the plans they sell to these institutions, even if the plan itself didn't technically have that coverage. If that's not allowed and the price tag to the institution doesn't include that cost then this shouldn't be a problem.
"
Insurers price plans based on coverage. If the plan offers full coverage for birth control, the price of the plan will go up accordingly. That delta is what my $200 figure above was.
If i've missed something and it's the insurers who have to eat the cost somehow, then you're right, this wouldn't be an issue.
"
Consider three possibilities:
1: employer must deduct $200 from each female employee's salary and give her the equivalent supply of birth control instead;
2: employer must deduct $200 from each female employee's salary and give her the equivalent supply of vouchers redeemable only for birth control.
3: employer can leave the $200 as cash compensation and has no control over how it is spent.
(note $200 was a wild guess, actual amount not important to argument)
I see more of a distinction between #3 and the other two than I do between #1 and #2.
But I do think that under this (reasonable) interpretation, it's the Catholic *employees* that should be upset, not the employers - they're being forced to buy birth control.
"
Dude, why you gotta tease us like that?
Did either of your censored comments have anything to do with John Wayne Bobbitt?
"
Well, it's more like the employer is being told to give each employee, in lieu of the equivalent in wages, a pack of vouchers that can be redeemed for free birth control pills. And note that even the observant Catholic employees who oppose the use of birth control have to pay for them in this way (or at least the female employees of child-bearing age, depending on how the organization spreads the costs).
On “Pondering Positive Rights”
The man in the ditch is there through no fault of his own, so that stacks the deck a bit. Let's move from parable to fable and stack it on the other side -- what are the ant's duties to the grasshopper that winter? Is it acceptable for him to let the grasshopper bear the consequences of his own decisions?
On “Hear Ye, Hear Ye! The Constitutional Convention of the LoOG is Now In Session!”
I propose removing "of the United States" from the preamble, so that the text will then exactly match the Schoolhouse Rock song.
"
Would that be a positive right?
On “Welcome to the Machine”
Also worth mentioning that they're not going to be using off-the-shelf Google Translate -- it'll be specially trained for this content. Assuming that patents include a lot of boilerplate and customary language (and little room for personal style), it might even produce halfway-decent results.
On “A (Long) Musing On The New Contraception Rule”
Fair enough. I also wouldn't expect a massive sell-off, but I can easily imagine this factoring into their decisions about future development and maintenance.
"
Re #1, isn't there already a mechanism for conditionally approving prescriptions based on qualifying diagnoses? Not that it couldn't be abused, of course.
Re #2, can they be viewed as health care in a way that, say, bike helmets can't be?
"
So the question is, is that a reasonable price to pay, in your opinion? If the Catholic church decides to get out of the hospital business in the USA (or at least reduce its footprint) because of this mandate and the prospect of future similar regulations, is our society better off? I'm not saying that it is or isn't, but I think the point should be addressed.
On “Against Art Relativism… or, If You Ever Wanted To Call Me An Elitist Snob, Here’s Your Chance”
That was awesome.
"
Obligatory XKCD reference.
On “Where’s TVD?”
Belated sympathies and a hearty Welcome Back.
On “The Third Tribe”
Reminds me of Mr. Bergstrom's parting words to Lisa Simpson -- "That's the problem with being middle-class. Anybody who really cares will abandon you for those who need it more."
On “The Margins of the Argument”
Well, whatever money you were living on hadalready been taxed when you got it. The difference in taxes between making $2x in year one and nothing in year two vs making $x both years would come down to tax brackets, the FICA cap, lost opportunity for deductions in year two, etc. -- could go either way.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.